Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
On 30/01/2011 13:10, koteche mcintosh wrote: People choose to donate just like before. But on a regular basis. everyone can see the fund. Everyone is part of the story. this GALVANIZES support. Shoes governments the POWER of public opinion. Creates a virtual community striving for information in a world where information is key.. Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access to accounts and a permanently donating community. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Questions about new Fellow
On 21/01/2011 03:36, whothis wrote: Thanks for introducing yourself Achal after so many years on the Advisory Board. Dare I suggest, you add part of that introduction to your Advisory Board page on one of the wikis. About the 5 year plan, dare I suggest you get around to reading that one of these days, you're on the Advisory Board after all. Let me clarify something, the page thats being linked to by Erik Moeller is a grant page, you are appointed as a fellow. I might be wrong on this but none of the other fellows had to apply for grants or the majority of them did not. Even the existence of such a process was unknown to most. The grant in question, I have no issue with, you are more than welcome to pursue any research you want, its your position as the fellow that I am concerned about. You can't be on an advisory board and tell a non-profit organization what to do as a pro-bono advisor to the board and then get paid by the said foundation as a fellow a few years into your tenure, serving both positions at the same time. This I believe, wreaks of impropriety, none of the other Advisory Board members ever had or will have the same privilege I assume, which is why I replied to this thread in the first place. This is something that the Foundation should have checked and announced before your appointment. In my opinion, you can have one or the other, you can either be a paid staff member/researcher for as long as the foundation employs you or you can be on the board as an advisor. Also, from your and Erik's admission above, the scope of your involvement seems to be far larger than I previously thought, encompassing the board, chapters and other kinds of affiliation that might usefully exist within our world, this only heightens my concerns even more. I hope others reading this realize the implication of your appointment. I had no idea who you were before this, and still don't, its nothing personal against you. Its the foundation I am bringing this up to, which I hope realizes, is for their own benefit. E. Forrester Welcome Achal! Well, it seems you were already there for longer than I was, so welcome feels strange to say. But anyway, it's good to have someone important coming out of the shadow to receive a well deserved grant. Speaking of which, I feel merrier when I know why I'm applauding, so don't be modest and tell us in full detail about your merits! To the people who are wary: come on my friends, it's only power and money. Assume good faith from the people who are handling it and go back to a quiet mode as usual. Keep positive vibes like edits and donations coming, though. Achal even tossed a solution to your *emotional* problems: half an hour of Pranayama every morning: it makes one feel calm and loving. That was very considered from his part, given how busy he is. You can also try some pills. Cheers. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege
On 19/01/2011 06:04, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: I remember still how in the middle of tough but slowly progressing discussion on global admins on Meta within a day several hundred en.wp users apparently unhappy with the fact that somebody may be rolling back their edits came, voted no, and the proposal was dead. Most of them never participated in the discussion and have never been seen on meta. Have you a link? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] fundraiser suggestion
I'd like to precise because of my bad english that I don't how to handle polite questioning without looking condescending or angry. I am uttering my words with the most profound respect to Erik even if I dissent about some topics with him. Erik wrote: I don't think any of the fundraising banners that ran made it substantially harder to access the information that people were coming Erik, why would people be complaining specifically about them if it's not about their disturbance? Of course you're entitled to have your personal opinion about the banners' effects on YOURSELF (though I think you mentioned your 'pain points increasing too but not that much' earlier, I don't remember the exact wording). Of course you are. However speaking in vague and general terms right after testimonials and complaints could look like denial of OTHERS' feelings. Those reports could be genuine and even right. The facts could be that the 'banners' (aren't they self-published ads really?) ARE annoying (even worrying for some) and that the discussion should be allowed instead of denied. My 2p. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] fundraiser suggestion
Are you saying that WMF has put itself in a huge dependence relationship with money? That it could be forced to require third parties' help if the donations are insufficient? That would be throwing itself into the lion's den. What was worth risking so much its economical autonomy and mission? I hope you're wrong about the situation, Brian. On 31/12/2010 16:19, Brian J Mingus wrote: Second, if WMF doesn't meet the fundraising goal they will have to cut something from the budget. If it's so very important to you that they not try advertising techniques that are mildly annoying to some users you should start by suggesting projects that won't get funded or people that won't get hired or servers that won't get bought, etc. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Tendrl to Knowino
On 19/12/2010 23:07, Fred Bauder wrote: There can be no viable alternative to Wikipedia. Fred User:Fred Bauder What? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
You don't receive your own mails. We got two copies of your previous mail. You can check on the pipermail. [1] [1]: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/ On 09/12/2010 19:39, Huib Laurens wrote: Am I placed on moderation? all my previous emails seem to fail? 2010/12/9 Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com 2010/12/9 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com: I don't support this word choice: on twitter.com Japanese speaking reader mistook it as one of English Wikipedia admins someone who writes articles etc. Not only smaller projects but also on the Wikipedia, this factual error is better to correct I think. I heard it placed only on enwiki (in a downtime I haven't confirmed yet), but English is no mother tongue of every reader of the English Wikipedia. Factual error and language barriers may spread false information. Not to mention cultural barriers. In Wikipedia communities with (to me, uncomfortably) structured hierarchies―Senior Editor, Editor Second Class, Senior Chief Petty Editor―this is bound to confuse the heck out of people. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we have enough problems trying to differentiate between Wikileaks and Wikimedia; having to revisit Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia is understandably frustrating to those of us who've spent years explaining the difference. It's easy to point fingers at an almost exclusively North American staff and cry cultural ignorance, but I'm not―I know that plenty of people on staff have years of experience working across cultures, even if it's talking to foreigners on IRC. I wonder, though, who on staff can name the editor ranks on zhwiki? Austin On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: FWIW The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to acknowledge that... Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the sort. That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content. I don't think it should be used anywhere. But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Ethics (was: Corporate Social Responsibility)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 What I thought was a simple question has generated a volley of strong answers, even some hostility. This was not the original topic. So I will wrap my intervention and be gone for a while. ==Representation== As far as I know, there is no survey of the wikimedians on what they think about the transparency of the Foundation and about the salaries of the employees. From my side, I always ask people what they think. In my life I listened to people of all ethnics and social classes from any country. So I'm doing an educated guess, based on my eclectic experiences and relationships, about the Foundation (and possibly the Chapters) not representing the consensus of the community (*). But don't throw your stones yet, and answer to yourself three questions: Do you care about what the community thinks? Do you have information about what it thinks? Is your circle of relationships and culture a good sample of the people concerned by the wikipedia project? Apparently, most of the people in this mailing list are living in one of the most expensive microcosmos of the world, with the highest standards of life. In contrast, the drama about having microwaved food and an old car is incomprehensible to 6 billions of people. I do understand it, though, but your views need to be challenged. Instead of explaining how normal, justified and even lowly paid is your way of life, did anyone put things in a bigger perspective? 150 000$ a year puts someone in the 0.33% top of the world [1]. Even 5000$ a month puts you in the 0.91% top. I'm not aiming at any individual in particular but showing the economical elitism of the Foundation in the worldwide context. And by the way, as a contrasting sidenote to the declarations made on this list about the price of legal advising, some associations do it for free [2]. All I'm asking here, is whether this approach was ever considered and tried? ==Ethics== The dozens of thousands of dedicated volunteers prove that the mission of Wikipedia is of an ethical essence. It is thus mandatory for the representatives and leaders to recognize it and share it. Despising or denying the ethical considerations is a mistake which can only end with the disavowing of an informed community. I've been wondering for a while how the dedicated volunteers were keeping faith in their abnegation when some people were getting paid for the same work, or worse, for transforming the volunteer work into money - - which I find discouraging and disturbing. It seems that opacity is one of the answers. Things are done discreetly [3][4] and confidentially [5]. Unless the Foundation aims to transform the Wikipedia into a rich-countries-centered money-making-machine, (and the doubling of the paid staff for a doubling of the fundraising is quite ambiguous to interpret), compliance with legal requirements will not suffice: I don't see other path than ethical consciousness to authentically reach all mankind. I've been asked to suggest concrete proposals. This would be useless as long as there is a majoritary denial. We can't discuss solutions while there is no awareness of the problem. And this lack of perception should be the first problem to be addressed. Having said that, I will retire from the discussion for a while. I need some perspective too. Once again, bear in mind that I mean no offense. (*): and remember that some - or in fact, most - communities are absent, as the current thread about american-africans shows. [1]: http://www.globalrichlist.com/ [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center [3]: What's hidden in this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Book [4]: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_thanks_Virgin_Unite [5]: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2010-October/69.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM62PUAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LWIYH/3XapRiU4VvQABdthjFrAPxu NnJa+9kc/xRa/z25xprbrSojjunn4Cp5XyO3ZwQfiQB9xy31EdZxCT7wiXxxKIE6 bno2iS4kMTR8bWSb35/7yAVMDNQ/jrjAsm4k+sJl5V+mTOs5dIVflB6fyrXIPDBS J9gntD4n68PXnyrbozL1NxlFVgUeCnR6knApxXecBsxEdbReEQHZCQARkxWmNAPY t1QaRTveQXSnmzbVCwj0IoeSHhb0W+wal84Zu5Ljx/+DtpFJfTOqe4isM2sYjVmC VzcYm1d4yFQiGxgMTwd/KAPmwRT8iMYy3TwinJLJRcqeIgL1Krgu6zFjtDOQmZ0= =Ghuu -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/11/2010 09:37, Craig Franklin wrote: I don't know any of these people personally, but $128k a year for a legal expert of Mike Godwin's stature and experience sounds like a bargain, not an unreasonable expense. Given that WMF needs competent legal representation, and given that the WMF is not exactly flush with cash, we should be thanking Mike for essentially taking a pay cut compared to what he could probably have made in the for-profit sector. Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (equivalent to a monthly 14587$ income) Veronique Kessler was compensated 121859$ (equivalent to a monthly 10155$ income) Mike Godwin was compensated 128139$ (equivalent to a monthly 10678$ income). Thank you everybody for explaining your views. Most of the US inhabitants who answered me seem to be living and believing in a hierarchical and competitive world where the highest ranked ones- who are praised as gods - take from the lowest ones - who are just good enough to give their money and effort. As a matter of fact, their society seems organized to maximize money and it is echoed in their opinion about how to manage this huge collaborative effort about knowledge called Wikipedia. This conditioned acceptance - conditioned in the sense that it seems natural and the only imaginable solution - reflects a strong, current, ubiquitous, western, capitalist, materialist and proprietary cultural bias. The alternatives are infinite, though. I would like to know what you think of complementarity, creativity, liberty, conviviality, sharing, and optimizing (instead of maximizing) for example. Are they completely out of your scope, out of your hopes and wishes? My understanding of the Social Contract of Debian that Milos mentioned [1] is not as a legal policies but as ethical policies. I don't feel it has been properly discussed yet. [1]: http://www.debian.org/social_contract -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6H0lAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LKBUH/iR6I4xqIJ6fgwrXDOmq7hk9 AoW76HIRk8qQC0UdWzUvVxdIiUXr6vDK50DkSFUJhS7kUtC5vuOxcEhzcNV1n4v8 tqhEAxxXxnwzZYYcGSdz5QrFZnJZe4EmmvUImxje26ngaoyPxki+AKI3rf9PR361 IizoUZDM/06Q9lfyE9TmaRhZ33g9wujLisIVQ7q+6oMpR2tmNzEXmM0IW/h0pDxY FhmGy2kfJMarWfjataltegvSDuTKO/55ziMUuho/9z9F/JHfprPN7juc/zwVr4lz m0Qmaa+eL4+bu9FsIMibrhuDpuAVJAV/fRzpqvTXB6GBN3FOAZKz0UAkBk+RBFA= =9oFU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/11/2010 23:26, David Gerard wrote: On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The Wikipedia idea begins by Imagine. You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you believed yourself to be making complaints you reasonably expected to be acted upon in this world, rather than presenting a perfect spherical charity of uniform density in a vacuum at absolute zero as you now seem to be saying you have been. I was used to more respectful manners from you, David. The changes are possible. I'm humbly checking why they're not already happening in Wikipedia. The capitalist and corporatist mentalities I'm discovering in the oligarchy of the Foundation (without any pejorative meaning in it) are not representative, in my opinion, of a general consensus from the community. - From there I see three paths: - - ask for more opinions in the hope I'm wrong - - help the Foundation to understand other ways of thinking and to engage in higher ethics. - - alert the community Since I have better things to do for 2011 than activism, I'd rather try the civilized ways of talking and listening. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6J4+AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LU3kH+wQgX5M44Hi6m9GTr/sJpC2G pPSvxQe3b/P+K5zunFU0G9CIs47F3xLPYvQ5vhkSZVOVUvKPvuOr5WGME8rck4VA e8CjAIQ+HQr4YY82DeiNuYA/19e7zRqKLS4PS9ham6z1opHVPy5rzA8yqbo0EMU6 FtjHNvJEGsM1HQ6Eq9lRAm5bJBC50tx7VxPtA1DjFam1Fv2DY78XB3j6WcFzsc4t WYHSzu5KgevkQs5LijZCtCeetkpaCwdCalwvRlPln8hD1yZVay/IWnCI+x7KxM9K CItpWox5/ZkOiNdbzK4qxSJOCdSu6fuagx7OuGejZLnn19u9U5AFw+Ml2VtzATE= =Nny+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/11/2010 11:42, Fred Bauder wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud abbas...@hotmail.com wrote: Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Corporate Social Responsibility? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility It appears to be something for for-profit corporations to do to appear less rapacious. It's not clear what its applicability is to a 501(c)3 charity, given that you only get 501(c)3 by being of social benefit in the first place. Yes, but it would be good if we would have Social Contract, like Debian has: http://www.debian.org/social_contract We are not short of similar firmly held policies, such as neutral point of view. They are mostly written out in our policy pages. What would you add or emphasize? I would add policies for the WMF like a duty of transparency about money. I still don't understand how the WMF can state for example: The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. The terms of the severance are confidential: we won’t talk about them now, or in the future. But you can rest assured that the Wikimedia Foundation wants to see Mike continue working to advance people’s online freedoms: everybody would like to see him continue making an important contribution. [1] As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is public money. There should be no confidential secret about where it ends, and how much, and why. I don't want to stir a polemic, but I really have no clue about how I should understand such decision to hide facts. [1]: I couldn't find the original mail by Sue Gardner but here's a link to an immediate answer quoting it entirely: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061693.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5uyDAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LAHMH+gMJJzFG4+hyGhuzfTw1bLYz FW9NZiERaVArsMC6YA27ps0AK/ubX2/+qMGT/E11wlMX2ptBul82QQywZmQp+qSj fQ7+rbd5j4h1FAN/mYId2IlJ7g8JFwZ2jAD7UZyKfCIqKHWqBZQC8DiQ2W6DbTs2 iGGA8NDhlrUCO1YE8N/lz5cmGJ2mKGE/EcYwEvmQ+lsrXX99OsqHpEjx2a3VVRuq C4uM9XvrQWUb++h7nmO2/cTLxqJ1TdTiooEXIvzEHeEhjEUjbxBP3syJYaz6QFn6 ENYzV5aqhGVivB+u+zXq4mAFGYj1vaq0UAep5bInXdOKkL9kUbPGdEMQnp7Y/cs= =6q+Y -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/11/2010 18:48, Fred Bauder wrote: I suspect it is more to avoid embarrassing him by disclosing he worked for so little than to hide Wikimedia business. By I suspect do you mean that you are speculating? I think we should stick to facts, since speculations about confidential deals could quickly lead to unwanted controversies. The terms of hiring professional help are usually kept confidential as are personnel issues. But the Foundation's money and resources are not, are they? Isn't the WMF linked to the WM community as if each editor was a moral shareholder, with a moral right to know, a moral right to have a say and a moral right to decide? Sorry if my question seems naive, but shouldn't it be that way? We're in a bad place; only a highly skilled and well-experienced person could do such work and we don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate. Though I understand your reasoning which is a valid one, I'd like to pinpoint that it doesn't flow in the same direction than the volunteer spirit which has been the main engine of the wikimedian projects. Payed persons should be the exception because we couldn't find a volunteer to do it as well. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that orienting the Foundation model towards money-based jobs, more paid jobs, better paid jobs and more fundraising would shift the current universal goals of WM towards monetary and possibly less universal concerns. It will be helpful in hiring replacements if we don't trash the professionals who work for us. I didn't suggest trashing anyone, so I don't know where this comes from. Anyone who works for us should depart with our good wishes, not a barrage of criticism. I'm sorry that you read my words as bad-willed criticism. All my good wishes go to Mike Godwin, to the Foundation and to the WM mission. I thank everybody, Mike included, for all the good work they've done and will keep doing. My inquiry is not about a person or another, though. It's about the way things are done. I want to learn, understand and be informed. I'd just like to know if some extra money or reward were given (or promised), in this current case to Mike Godwin. It's healthy to know what the Foundation is doing with our donations and volunteering efforts, because it creates trust. The phrasing of Sue Gardner about the severance [1] agreement were vague and left doubts about what it may be. [1]: The Wikimedia Foundation and Mike have figured out severance that we all hope will protect Mike and give him time to think about what he wants to do next. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5wogAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L6VsH/3dw7L8dzQ7InxfFSAVmR485 zg5tp+wkg5oXGQlqEp8W+oR/mOrrCNoq+sHvHMkiwZ6NPkPDGGAR1C0vDugFmNca M3RfjVhOMY8iyVGKLAfkzH8ITOhbwx17OWuFhjFwwGQjjm6pNHkqN7E64TgAGgmz ghCslW61+mAhO6b4tjdhGV/jv0DvWnGZkaENjXmwB6YQRDXt0/UFlrL9AI/W/WcJ QDE7ivInpaE3+hMh7Cbf8j1PKvEk+sJgSKFKQ++vZBaLBqjmnfigNaFO0ilZ82LW tXlVJWDob23BoyjUpDspZlv6ldEuuNjOFypPdgldFT5TQ6JjzRAcVIwVSFohLzk= =IM5o -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/11/2010 19:22, Dan Rosenthal wrote: Noein, personally, I would think that a duty of transparency about money and publicizing information about a private employee's salary, benefits, or severance packages are two wildly different things. There is a certain point where things become a matter of personal privacy, after all. It could be that we come from different horizons of thinking. For me it is natural that any non-profit organization, which owes its existence to the community it represents, should inform transparently what it is doing with the resources it is centralizing. For you it seems natural that people in charge have their private secrets about their managing of the public assets. Apparently we don't put the line between the right for privacy and the duty of transparency at the same level. I am naturally more demanding about a Foundation in charge of 80 000 volunteers. Is this attitude unfounded? You say you have no clue about how you should understand a decision to hide facts. Does that mean we should publicize his medical records too? I think only pertinent facts about the WM mission, and the way WMF handles the mission, should be demanded. We're clearly not talking about a personal fact here, but about a Foundation fact. As for the medical records: people should be fit to do their jobs, so if there were a serious doubt about it, the question about disclosing the health state should legitimately arise. How transparent would we need to be? Should we put his salary history for every job he's worked in his life on his article? I think the transparency must be enough to generate trust. Once again, if serious doubts were arising about the past of a person, they should be cleared not by censorship nor denial but by openness, honesty and sincerity. I admit I may be too naive. But I'd like to be refuted by solid arguments, though. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5wqiAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LBnUIAOB7A53tCNiZv7SwSYlAkMR5 +AjYdbuSJG7OTy0emHCO3injYhsxm4TmGnbVfHeqGA0u6886VfmVXINNEWq1gx1G rFnH5vRtFYrd/jDR80E0TV+J9g8MTU+fmnbQreLXeHyhl8DBG7tDKkS3q9TkqRV6 f2s+bB0q6pN2FbdOFvK05/coh0MA3EbQ3BT41bkIHLitgngghOID7w53DYMxH3VG q2tO8raZUBg7A2evIlO2fYsJfmKnVUt4xCc4qFBCY7pZ6SF7Sgp5I7t9HSgXvaaW LcmbjOlBjZbtCGH5LBAaoxkiGNiKF3ugBfpJ8B2K3j3wvtxA9FsbEim+GM+ZZxk= =lrMn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/11/2010 21:31, Risker wrote: The last one is for the fiscal year ending June 2009, and was filed on 29 April 2010. Link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990.pdf The section on salaries begins on Page 7. Thank you for the links. I'm consulting the 990 form for 2008-2009 right now [1]. Sadly, I already have questions: Item 15 of page 1 says: Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits: Current year (2008-2009): 2,073,313 dollars. (By the way, the annual report states another number: 2,257,621$. Why?) With 26 employees declared at that time, it gives a mean salary of 6645$ a month for each employee. Isn't it morally a little high for a non-profit organization and unfair towards the current 80 000 volunteers? Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (equivalent to a monthly 14587$ income) Veronique Kessler was compensated 121859$ (equivalent to a monthly 10155$ income) Mike Godwin was compensated 128139$ (equivalent to a monthly 10678$ income). I don't live in the USA, but I'm surprised about these numbers. Frank Bauer estimates that they don't have the money to begin to pay for such services at market rate. The fact that this is legal or traditional is beside my point. Though I'm willing to listen and understand the Foundation's way of thinking, I'd like to express that for the cultural and ethical grounds from where I come, it is unacceptable for someone to profit from volunteers' efforts and from donations aimed at a cause. I'm not saying this is the case, but I would gladly receive insightful answers because I'm currently at loss about what to think of the Foundation. [1]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/5/54/WMF_2008_2009_Form_990.pdf [2]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/FINAL_08_09From_KPMG.pdf -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM51wyAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L8dAIAK7JEXcJVUqcj1AVWLObO43k HHhwzrllc+xZv1o5pL5Ts7Hq82usVcELFUWfbrfQLz0odoPPK8RJ4ngjLc34xuka QDy1lW2XgpEfE7oaFMpJBla3vCVuZF/GI/rUNLFCFjJeiaE1Mb+sR0xrFLOGRzH9 RVZ22LZy3oCQEMxWC5l2YpcEVl1Eb9Xa4K3mfrUec0GHqr9QgN0M6XK72Bm1Iiy6 UMbH1H/XQnpMfdZGbS/qOb+MPVmB5vbT/JkqxDBJKV3ZiN5+R1I2Pf1b52nIms7y ynN3P4kyfNgmDwDAOMC3B/JuFzLme41mi48hW+P/aFr0gov9uePXghCoMtBgZg0= =WDg2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] wikimedia fundraiser
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Did they add a button Read Now on the donation campaign banner or did I miss it earlier? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM4RJiAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6Luy0IAJMzG5NHjA0Uv7HPk9iJ2ElH ke9ntFcydVvTqF5ZTB+EPOdUSvTsaYBgI/pb4KZdme7j8sj6YptIJWqG2jRPVnCh 8LtoV2cwyshzg9z6gbU3LAFTnEJFuHBD4rrsMIHD00AoeaX1/4yKX7cVSkhXzC3T r+J62GSuHzXEk10Dkgzz3gyxFokZdFboKpTt6QcFZK3gI1MM9X8lDTiciN/P436J FgpbmwhPrd2tsqxjkhS+FRBo/5SqBJ+2+CsSvN6kC/RAhPQILglx5aP0ezup/2gc XmEiITAAYTz1JeS53uSPHnsRpLEgG5KaXJbduutK0F36AUV3RRXLVv2JhQd+tic= =K8an -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] wikimedia fundraiser
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Did they add a button Read Now on the donation campaign banner or did I miss it earlier? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM4RGkAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LoVUIANNFMCkKVUXKt6sz4D6P5EN8 jeEWDnMDsTNCG8BbPxhsniT21dYQO3z/MrL3z/8HzhZN20by78rtxXGgu9emyRkv 6UhyVfILZzYHf/bVDf+aV+FjOnhtkYLf0ISJxlnUPXgakaOwJXl88hQIR0wvbXmu b1P8x+8AYUAvk0hS+2K3x7lwNIQw9g6bN4EN+0Akb6B+qERO5/9niSRSlbzjwPa9 IgzLInVyfyNa76cUEp7awZG34glXG0gIo28HCLDJdbkI0dP8FtbB7HITAvWWjOf7 VyFGqXi8ygh8JL1Gu0gdlvGCMRZIHXJr/q0iUTMrflRj5WIf3BWUyWXLFnEFKWM= =cn+z -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] naming of things in kosovo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm very naive on this subject, but from what I understood there are two ethnic groups (independent or not, it doesn't change this cultural fact). And one of this group has two official languages. So, regardless of the political agendas, why don't we let each ethnical group have its own wikipedia project, and in case of several languages, allow a secondary fork? This would concretely gives three distinct projects: - - WP:Serbia - - Wp:Kosovo_serbian - - WP:Kosovo_albanian This way, everybody is entitled to edit in the WP they are agreeing without disrupting the other choices. On 15/11/2010 10:56, Mike Dupont wrote: I have done a write up of the current issues with the naming and invite you to please read and comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mdupont#Naming_and_status_of_Kosovo_pages I suggest some things and would like to find agreement, we need to figure out the right way forward on this issue so we can improve the quality of the articles. Even if we don't change the names of the articles, we have to make sure that the articles are usable for people if they only know the albanian or serbian name. We need to also clean up the entire Parallel article structure for the Districts of Kosovo, Districts of Kosovo (serbia) and Municipalities of Kosovo. The district scheme is totally outdated and confusing. It reduces the quality of the Wikipedia to have POV Forks. thanks mike On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:08 AM, M. Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, sure, but a lot of smaller villages and towns in many countries do not have well-established English names. Besides, what constitutes the English name is a matter of debate - according to law, the official name of Kolkata in English is Kolkata... but then, couldn't Germany pass a law saying that their name in English was Bundesrepublik Deustchland, and would we have to consider that just as English as Kolkata or Thiruvananthapuram (formerly Calcutta and Trivandrum)? Anyhow, referring to things by their conventional English name is the reason we call it Kosovo and not Kosovë or Kosova, the Albanian names; however in cases such as village and town names, names of mountains and bridges, etc. which may have been referred to both ways in English literature or barely mentioned or not mentioned at all in English sources, it's less clear-cut. 2010/11/11 geni geni...@gmail.com: On 11 November 2010 14:26, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Ideally we would use the albanian names and encourage the locals to edit. No ideally we would use the English names. As we have established with say Germany and Norway what the locals happen to call something is of secondary significance. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM4VJUAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LhisIAKrjaBmZxQ+zFC/3LPh0/AgY ZCjMXSaZ0nBQVsHL45ZSlVN5zf9zgbvDalkM5mAfm6iT4aUquQLNAZEO7k/Nnbch ico3iwUttHuvJTFrE70wo11TtK9Pm0ENH0rzhzSztF7iIKTSksg/5BfVGTfQ29fM BEzO183cCIxv+NrDvLwLoR+MveH2V0hfT+pZ71NRsn5x4z1wPcZMCdOrqruIop9s snVzV5xIaSVippPeE+vzDZnjcBSFu5a4lPufCRZ0UqkWZvwOi32JOc/hLkNi61nD L25YTRgAjiobRiPNq53wqAEey6zHgBmMakCHOG/072dqNbc0FS0kaxZHolblk4g= =mZFK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 13/11/2010 16:59, Ting Chen wrote: I searched a little on meta and the oldest thing I found related to this is from the Foundation Report of January 2008 [1]. So I cannot tell you how the contract came into being. As you know, the Foundation moved in the spring of 2008 from Florida to San Francisco and rebuilt itself afterwards. Before the move the organisational maturity is still quite weak. I am sure that today such contract would be handled in other ways and the board would surely be informed. Maybe a scan of the contract would help clear things? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3wkNAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LCukIAMlvvd0a44z/4w29cyGOaIBi BZUQWy4joGdQ49WnV/EhMuWzJRoRfk/ereSkwxVvq6xYpiq4ZfbLibQhqTwyLLJ0 S+URLUkMcBH15QNojY61q7cGirhO3fop9JMhq1As8a8u+pvlMHjkxLKiwaHJfJb8 UDPxxLtRYWo6tUSKo19EFX9stKVa0ReHX+UkzXXHWOPfjKuarIUarS3uQngvjI0y kAkeO8H4FfEdQrreFL4q1J5DkRHpUf3kuOCwt11Xl+sQjM4yQS0Ym0s7HPpWUG51 LESDs/aQ+mlV+l0MhiyWjPqqIXxqMKOfynjIA0857sio42K3Pl+kmSFkqiPWbfk= =w1Sc -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 13/11/2010 17:25, Robert S. Horning wrote: Much of what I was trying to get started was covered on this very mailing list. If you go into the archives and look up Wikijunior to see some of the efforts that were made, including some initial publications that were made through Lulu (that were also removed from Lulu at the request of the WMF). The organizing efforts were being done on Wikibooks as much as could be done, and that was pretty much where it ended too. Why was Lulu removed? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3wnWAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LMwQIAIQv4dWUsTzCZ5smSmC/ohpa aWUYSbTiKc8RUiNDy+BJXAAcTD2sRLs4VINJ2c3aSZPgttIoyX61pR/j8U5Zpdjw +h12zC7g9XezF2l8Ab4Fgnohx8drZxQamV0o1XPqliT5OF/cT1333h4JCqDlkVey Z8PCHfdDg96hQ1E+3AmrbvyX967jRYK6slQZa5LCwln+By7GSPitnIUARbInl1pq 6q7IfeRXBEAmS/yMUZ3VFm3OXMSdKeMGpsxPaS4MW4YsXF0d3Ddym0AzQjvyrFMk t8Edr5BBqZTfPpxPqOSLfjmhsNzo+DfLL+1nbIXgeeVX7m7F0A5HmZjoTWbLlpE= =otK7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 13/11/2010 18:10, Michael Snow wrote: Let me ask this question. Suppose the Wikimedia Foundation were to buy PediaPress from Brainbot, including whatever intellectual property is associated with its service such as the LaTeX export. If Wikimedia did this and brought the service in-house, assuming the LaTeX export is released as open source, it would probably continue to contract with Lightning Source or some other company to do the actual printing (our competencies are much more on computer and web technology than print publication). Assuming that all of this was possible - and I have no idea what would be a reasonable price for PediaPress, whether Brainbot would sell, or whether that would be an appropriate use of funds in the context of our mission and strategy - would people be okay with the current placement of the service, including continuing to charge people who order printed books? Maybe I'm not entitled to give my opinion, but here's my vision of what could be a correct behavior towards the knowledge that we are spreading: it's as free as we can make it, because we want everyone to have access to it, and nobody should have a special power nor ownership on it. So making books and selling them at the price of the cost is okay, the extreme limit: the sustainable limit. Selling them with profit is not. Spreading through healthy, citizen, public or free NGO or associations is promising. Dealing with for-profit, governmental, financial or private organisms or corporations is worsening. Etc. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3xawAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L3AgIAMeVvfvmrZDO7ZfvCdQL8TdO 4ZgCv1m1KV3cn+mhRVrOqRs9hbS/WGmCVWdReM+bnq0tWDIvgNr7PJ/p2X9SgpMQ yTa7nNe6yZu6/1vvCy/f52Fy2N9v4TUaQhwmkH7rX0tsJR+PUFhScvCpJh0uoMIK YIXmiMaP6Mx8yqGVMLQCye1qria35quZyqaA7zfG9tU/YQhBk9I06ISo1A1UHa69 TAXDBpm8RP/OnY8ylW0FAwaiMOKH9wdczTGzZxIuzDwq+m3ZqLrj5DlUtwkPwNQE Pun3zaFB/B0JLRyJ40xi688wsW8giFp7ZLVZ/M9XRchArw72bZ8T0ygRIHUF0GU= =Pb7D -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 13/11/2010 19:14, phoebe ayers wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:51 PM, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 13:59, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: I know that also this example is not without flaw, as comparisons always are. What I want to say is, if a company can provide us a service that we really desperately need and we cannot get elsewhere, and it shares the same value as we are, I think it is a correct decision to take that service. I am sure this answer is maybe not satisfactory, but I hope it can explain a little what my personal opinion is. I understand exactly what you're saying, Ting, and I appreciate your thoughtful response. I suppose my reaction is an emotional one, but I'd argue no less valid for that. It's that much of the content of Wikipedia is written and administered by a surprisingly small number of people. We do it for nothing because we believe in the concept of free (in all senses) information. But now to the left of my vision, with every edit I make, there is a create book button, where a private company is quite openly making money from our work. That feels discouraging. Every edit you make is also mirrored by answers.com, which quite openly makes money off of our work as well. This particular line of reasoning has not historically served as a discouragement to most of our editor base. I didn't know that. How can a site be only a motor of search of our pages and at the same time charge for it? Aren't we already doing the same? We can even do it better since we're at the source of this service. With google ranking us high, we are an answer.com too, naturally. We don't need a professional counterpart, they have no plus-value to add to us that we can't add ourselves. Knowledge is not for elitists, knowledge is for everybody, and thus, as free of charges as possible. The crux of the question seems to me to rather be who and how we directly partner with, and what services do we offer to readers (and contributors) by such partners through the site itself. In the case of PediaPress, it's fairly low-key; what you see in the sidebar is actually a link to the book creator tool, which is extension code to make a collection of pages that can then be generated as a pdf. It is only after you click through and do this that you are offered a link to Get a printed book from our print-on-demand partner and a link to PediaPress appears. You mean Get a printed book from our print-on-demand partnerS and several links of several partners, among them PediaPress in alphabetical order to be exact, I presume. All of those partners should be non-profit, of course. People are quite free to create a pdf collection and never send it to PediaPress, which wouldn't generate a dime for them, and my instinct is that this accounts for the majority of the tool's use. Then the service would be pdf creator, not book creator, right? I don't mean to be dismissive, though; asking about partnerships is a totally valid question, and we should at the very least keep any such partnerships open so that we can always consider if there are other and better services, extensions, etc. available to offer in addition to or in place of existing ones. Yes. And discussing about their moral interest could our first discussion, actually. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3x8aAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L9o0H/0xdsOlkQ+4uB/01zryFRiEw afjAAhGq++oD8Gn0IlktxHyycrhUoXCnIfVTdxyhhTbC0IDRx/0yhEap8e8lyXya MAbITzz9xQ1WHHbYBJ6ahGZlJeQwtj4f1YkNGENgzmfgvQlUzrvnaHqJad9s75Uv Gz153fv2fswtSivVBUAFIXcxxqm4zApQ2GroR6dAnr28SqSfOfWd8mnNDfeqM78U KSu+ztw4Ef9Hqn0jOOId8gr75lcjBcIQ6qc5ayZBC4GBQ63dRkVHA3wUNylqesp1 sCd3tSsNZDe7vC0CT0I1mdT7Zf2bYbRhPGW6JBpWNUa9S1tRyFusb8GmNDTquDg= =LvT7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm forwarding this message from Cyrano. - On 12/11/2010 02:06, Erik Moeller wrote: A bit of general background: The Collection/Book creator feature allows managing, organizing and exporting content in PDF and in OpenDocument (the latter is still very buggy). We're planning to work with PediaPress to add OpenZIM support (useful for offline readers like Kiwix); EPUB is a possibility. The feature supports pulling specific article revisions, or the current revision, and it has some nice features like automatic suggestion of articles, easy addition of articles to collections while browsing, etc. Although PediaPress are the developers behind the feature, it's completely separate from their services (providing printed books). The code of this feature is open-source and has been reviewed by developers from the community, I assume. It seems that PediaPress was entirely created (their site is from 2006) for the edition of wikipedia books: I couldn't find a single book not written by Wikipedians. So again, what were the so interesting profile of this society... Were other alternatives like http://www.lulu.com/en/about/index.php considered? PediaPress says that A portion of the proceeds of each book will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation to support their mission. [http://pediapress.com/]. How much exactly? Look at that: PediaPress was founded in July 2007 as a spin-off from brainbot technologies AG and is located in Mainz, Germany. [http://pediapress.com/about/] And brainbot is: This cooperation enables brainbot technologies to rapidly transform state of the art research results into marketable products. [http://brainbot.com/home_en/] Can you see the big picture, the plan? Wikimedians and internauts build the info, and Brainbot/PediaPress/DFKI [http://www.dfki.de/web/welcome?set_language=encl=en] profit on it! Great plan. I'm sure the wikimedians would love to have a say, though. If PediaPress were to disappear tomorrow, we'd continue providing the remaining functionality. In fact, at this point in time, uses of the feature for digital offline distributions are more interesting to us from a strategic point of view than print distribution. Because images and other media quickly inflate any offline export, content selections may often be the more viable method to create digital offline distributions of WP content. The 1,400 selections already compiled using the Collection extension provide a great starting point for this. It's also conceivable to work with validation partners to create trusted selections of content for schools etc. We have a non-exclusive business partnership with PediaPress (a small for-profit company) with regard to their provision of print services, which is commission-based. From a mission standpoint, it's nice for both our audience and our contributors to have the print options available, which is supported by demand (about 2,000 per quarter -- we'll soon have a WikiStats report on book sales) and user feedback. It can also be great outreach tool. In fact, as Tim pointed out, the idea of printed selections is a very old idea that very many Wikipedians have worked on over the years. The goal of the relationship with PediaPress was to have an open toolset that any and all efforts towards print or other export formats could build upon. PediaPress has been a model partner -- they're super-responsive, and interact directly with the community to service all aspects of the technology. I'm personally very pleased that the hardcover and color options are now available. There are so many fantastic photos and illustrations in Wikimedia projects that the black/white books really didn't do them justice. It's certainly not for everyone, but for those of us who like to show our family and friends what this whole Wikipedia thing we spend so much time on is all about, it can be pretty awesome. Kindle or not, a printed book gives a very tangible reality to our efforts. I am certain that this conversation is not about the cover. Our concerns are real. On 12/11/2010 03:32, Tim Starling wrote: On 12/11/10 13:23, MZMcBride wrote: They negotiated with Wikimedia? Where and when? How many thousands of companies would like their links in the sidebar of the fifth most-visited website in the world? Are they really that good at negotiating? On the English Wikipedia, there's a Book namespace and the sidebar has a completely separate print/export section that comes from the Collection extension. That's worth a percentage of the book sales? Potential parternships are assessed by mission-relevance, not just revenue potential. Offline distribution is part of the Foundation's mission, as is open source software development. PediaPress were offering to do those two things. Pediapress is promising a donation for each sell. I think
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/11/2010 07:40, Magnus Manske wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:56 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2010 07:56, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: We should offer to host citizendium on our servers at no cost for a period of 1 (one) year offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects. After one year the citizendium community/Editorial Council is expected to have sorted themselves out to the point where they can arrange their own hosting. At which point we lock the database and provide them with the dumps I strongly support this. +1 It seems a very good and healthy idea. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3RxMAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LIVkH/2xiNLlUackYRMixrmDJauBQ SVo9zLt5JIBYZIk+iPLGiIgXaNxp0bTc/KTwSfGxxGoZKKzq1aXuFDvLU8hDJ006 BvNuovPQQx+rh56NJYUgZW/3A9M47YesogTaTfRxwhPZO2NmLrQnqhjGtfNTgMV9 DvyV7zhHdSWO1OiCzoFeJ+7SlCtnA3ikzjAarUdA3y3xglrfWZgY0wo4BDoLw43T d87juvtA5+vfSPJo/eU3R/GT0n9niuXDJUFbeUqwhBsdfslfyON2+xVpNEYYwm1V hVUbPCKLVzdDQ3N4Q0+q1wHLSKCUxHrv98erq7skbi/WhR8jlOx7z1WvQ6RsFWo= =FdNd -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've read Wikimedia's PediaPress press release[1] a few times now and I still can't figure out if PediaPress is a non-profit organization or a for-profit company. I think there's a large distinction between the Wikimedia Foundation taking a community project and encouraging a for-profit company to make money off of it (through sidebar links and installing a custom extension) and working with a non-profit organization to distribute free content. MZMcBride [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikis_Go_Printable I agree with you. It's funny how this topic echoes the way the recent thread about advertising on wikipedia ended: On 08/11/2010 22:04, Fred Bauder wrote: An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product visually appealing, and used the generated money from the advertisements purely to fund ever more timely database dumps It would be interesting to see how frequent database dumping could be financed by advertisement on such a site; the synergy should be obvious -- the more money they generate from adverts, the more resources they can devote to making ever more frequent dumps, so the more timely is the content, which will again make therir product more attractive, and so on -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] Whether this is great idea or not I don't know, but this is the kind of out of the box thinking that is potentially productive. We could produce periodic polished editions. Fred -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3KjEAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LI/YH+QFjDatXS0A78wi5rfF6wWkk NdEth2bFS/X/mXUUUE4xz7uhfZfi7U7V5D1DTtlA8PavcY3hgvtHCNeFip1mMsaK a/YXhzuHqyOR3X8qOvC64zBNHNUsSd5CnEWN0CT98IJmcy49zk+6yk0+QVoy1McX cqPXoq47CvYzo8YH6NoYlWNjOLI/iFOpUAB6QPvsr0sPhJ4mTHVA/OVCCi7LPaSu BDKqZTl1Jxu+Y9bsQqAZ118M1A1atVNUsQ5VGCWeScGxrSR3kJQf/OTDWqyqZD8z 9+JEr15WudoeeH4Xl2DyVtZ/STpbQnRlXH/CczS9FKM7JlBAWuXoXk7Fm5EhWNg= =Op94 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/11/2010 17:37, Gerard Meijssen wrote: I care more about realising our ambitions, I care about getting our message out. Personally, I care also about the means. I wouldn't like cupidity as the core of wikipedia. Money, thus, should not become the fuel we use. In my opinion we can improve our messaging a lot. When people say that the WMF is transparent, they are right. We fail however in having our message heard. When we hire new people, people like Alolita for instance, we hire someone who we should be proud of. Proud that she wants to work with us. Many great activities are happening in our chapters. Learning about these activities is inspiring. When we know what fun can be had, we can learn from each other and reduce the amount of overhead and concentrate on where we make a difference. Another aspect that is missing in annual advertisement discussion is what we should do with the money.. Assuming that we make a huge amount of money, I have blogged about that as well. Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/effect-of-100m-in-advertisement-money.html On 6 November 2010 22:20, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Hoi, As the A word has been mentioned again as is tradition, I want us to talk instead about how we can advertise / market our strategy, I want us to discuss how this helps us to reach out. How we can realise the goals that we so beautifully formulated in our strategy.. To start it off, I have blogged some of my sentiments. Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/11/annual-wikipedia-argument-about.html Nice sentiments, but you don't address the question of why someone else needs the potential advertising revenue more than we do. Google does many good things, including providing substantial support to Wikipedia, but what good does money in the pockets of their shareholders do us? Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2GLQAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LB1oH/0WryvXb/91J9PVUK3kW7S88 LN0zjeVOpaV6WJ2DDPqZ1fBfwd6NH0rbbSeU88RsM0Q8zmBLiJxd+Lhmb+XXiRCO Rro7I0wwbRnHEF+PY2xk3EcUe/HZx3ho6gWQkadHwdGPhFEjRoYX4qKKeq8Ldx60 Mbx6QSavtXInMuNJ9iGQpgJZaklX9Rvt143H8YfxIQtO3Jq9V85chuDHud9GF37l 0tmqQvYj/bUnNvi1PSfYJmZf1DJE2i1ipLBCsXOmRm1D48nsnnv6iFvB0Y92AhfJ jnXoUzuya2cKC3aK3c2VhCrgO8nj0fRzvaph7Tvj51p/BdbmtNW3NVR9SUjSu3w= =viC4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 There are strong economic interests to cheat about medical research, so we should be extremely fair, transparent and informative about those articles. Mentioning the funding source of any research is the building base of critical trust.[1] [1]: critical trust is the kind of trust one obtains after having access to all the necessary data to make a judgment in complete liberty of thought. On 08/11/2010 02:54, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing... To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22 On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in the field* is, however, something that strongly suggests we should not deliberately withhold such information from the reader. Err we don't. They are free to consult the source. However the field in question has long established standards when it comes to citation. So for example when Anti-HIV-1 activity of salivary MUC5B and MUC7 mucins from HIV patients with different CD4 counts cites Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary mucin they do so in the form of: Bergey EJ, Cho MI, Blumberg BM, Hammarskjold ML, Rekosh D, Epstein LG, Levine MJ. Interaction of HIV-1 and human salivary mucins. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994;7:995–1002. And do not mention it's funding source (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967540/). This is a valid argument. However, mentioning the funding source is not unheard of in medical citations. See the first example given here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=citmedpart=A32352#A32755 Funding is consistently included on abstract pages. Examples: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013614 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010548 Here, funding is included along with the publication data. It is a standard format. Where references are hyperlinked, as in your counterexample, professionals can view the article. Our readers cannot, unless they have access to the relevant academic database. A. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2GTYAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LaQEIAOC+EhMgBURRQLynNGfim/Hi hWjY2K00jNTFwzJCvULXMz922PEOGQMSHWACI5McJXHn0QbRm5eifY3VhZG6L4la b1ZWeXagbwp9Of2JagXA7Nb9ilWga4MbEg0hNoyuk1FsTAFBV4HVSSn3/gnZOM/Y JAvHLepDH5b7xeQrAGA//4gYzDxSMZKIKFjtERhGg0Ghb8eauMO6oItk+pNyvHH8 CDmq//VRcK5l5OKTaJe4IaNIIIvFkBRg8Am3TB2p/cRqM96OS8NJcWKycgQ9lOTL CDq3iLdCkc2N83iHGmlcTf0lkuBWu1J3m6G6td3v6f6NpnabmlIt5WmSJ5u814s= =ELkK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the annual advertisement discussion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/11/2010 19:44, Fred Bauder wrote: How many billions in potential advertising revenue do we leave on the table each year? Please don't take this as any personal attack, but did we reach such a philosophical and wise government in the foundation that we now wish to talk about opening the dams of money? The day that the community at large (that is, a massive consensus, not representatives) agrees completely about a very specific project with crystal-clear intentions and critical-trusted [*] agents, THEN and only then should we start talking about founding *directly*, not through intermediate organizations. [*]: once again, critical trust is the kind of trust one obtains after having access to all the necessary data to make a judgment in complete liberty of thought. On 08/11/2010 18:10, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, Another hard word.. cupidity: avarice: extreme greed for material wealth. I appreciate the sentiment. However, the material gain from advertisements is not going to make us personally rich. Since I was born I have only found a handful of saints who handle millions of dollar without getting rich themselves. Let's say that my lack of luck has put a sense of rightful distrust towards projects of power and money. I'd like a complete understanding of who would be doing what with Wikipedia if it were to become a source of income, because we're talking about an incredible sum of good willed efforts, of people who believed in an ideal, versus an incredible source of corruption. I'd like to be sure that the monstrous altar we're building since 2001 will not end as a making money machine. Id' like to be doing the right choice about this. I would require such conditions to vote with a full awareness of the topic: First show me the need for this money. Then show me a huge consensus about this need. Then I would accept, and I think I'm speaking the community's mind, to discuss about how we want the financing done. It will enable us to do more and different things. Of course it will. Money can do everything, the best and the worst. But it won't be our money, it will the money of advertisers, who will threaten and reward us endlessly with their coins according to THEIR goals, until the first cedes. It's letting the wolf into the sheep pen, says a french saying. [*] [*]: enfermer le loup dans la bergerie. Things that are currently outside of our reach. When we use such monies frugally, the benefits will be enormous and, this is quite the opposite of your sentiment. This ideal outcome is beautiful, really. But it won't happen the ways things are currently. That's precisely because I believe in Wikipedia's vision that I must advocate for financial freedom from third parties and reject your proposal. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2G+5AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L8KoIAN6RK47WxfeBqWM99Awk1oZI 2RJBXZw2t6DhfgVR4Z/EgcWgpxyEHbfTyGT/pVBf0gYcRJv56aijmGov2wQgCZ4P RZb3Wm9O95pLfai36tpTvyClf+dFj+2RkF+F1g0I7zaEuHcg9CQYxpIQVnkw4qYJ 8PBO3iJpHC26gJV8cXumhkWZ/9ZOKrrI9iQO5dOMIDl3C85inRH+3f2WbqsHNim6 ujIeY4IqgAlPbN5Q2wMR6GFpx85tJ0nzAbJjHHkE6zx5vHP8UCXAiv4YwmlgjvaG 6ehtuhz3ay7l6pUo+EH/5k86vSFMsBurs8DwQ6mbaxAHhihMlvZstM/SMnA7eIA= =wWU3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/11/2010 18:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product visually appealing, and used the generated money from the advertisements purely to fund ever more timely database dumps It would be interesting to see how frequent database dumping could be financed by advertisement on such a site; the synergy should be obvious -- the more money they generate from adverts, the more resources they can devote to making ever more frequent dumps, so the more timely is the content, which will again make therir product more attractive, and so on This is clever. But let me expose the flaw with wikinews: wikinews would thus get a financing for a printable version with ads. Huge success! We then recruit an editorial team of 30 paid people to keep with the production, formatting, checking. But then the we discover that if the news are not to the liking of our advertisers, they punish us. On the contrary, they could reward us. Our editorial team start fearing for their job. They have a wife and two kids to feed. They got used to having a job. They are dependent on money, and now money will start deciding what should be the news. After all, what is the value of a fact? 0. The value of displeasing our sponsors? A big, significant lump of money. So, I think that if there is money to be made, it should be without intermediaries. If we need financing it must be coming directly from the community and controlled and used directly by it. Anything else is injecting corruption. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2HKnAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LLUQH/jnhBYLG+y1c8bMx+2e5Iinl 4I6NEFt2cXKzESq/GPrcLjrJALJ8iHFiJdH5+sQ/51GFR8IaJDaaLeHOqb0lPMAs TBGg6OF7FO4k35/cIwYEEykjUgNk6ztSy6hpY+1D52zZvxcOozYaHkx4QsoTcnac ge3Yx64H2LMX81Qwq5B3+O0/826x6MK6ugol4yjwUOwa7FeVz2PpCBda2dAAZJWN WMmUJ4O1LaF9e+3SzprSMYy+NQAGn7IYJI5VF9RT+EvcsXh/3oqciBLHaitoJcUQ s3c6LxiwMFa+/bYx0K76dVpsW7M8LOL8g4Iu0Sf5Z8u56Rxf+tnwhibyPauujPg= =w7e/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/11/2010 01:33, Fred Bauder wrote: Everything that is done incorrectly because of funding is also done by those who have an intellectual or emotional stake in the outcome Yes, and that's where we fall down. Many of us are editors with purpose. They many be noble purposes, but often we ourselves have an agenda, of some sort, even if only to highlight neglected truths. I'm trying to understand precisely what you mean here. Could you elaborate ? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM2NKYAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LRx8IAI9I0CaYL0uGwXgpq1H16RpB 37Dd8Cfv/nV+7Ue4LP1n5j0QdILDUtk/BaBxuI1FVEVSid9h3MDM1oMX4nvm2ADk iyY7+iVx/KZWv7C2c79b+bU6PeElaFwQpxqlS9dtzA9X3CJdlYXXSMofTkKFB2Nn CVzgfX+eRgr3RzjXShweLK3qLfYfaJwJM7auUGiCv3GMKaAI8lk3H1fnuhTTHUIy kHACpStCxbYHEdbdD92Ob3j2Txvm7sYiJcL0+2C62560KRv/lJdFbVH0GvXSBhbl K7fMNXZmAZYGqweFXWxy3MmxpejdI14cB2iB75XjALdIbtzHQgmIchb9P/jQJrc= =hAGp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] message from Cyrano
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I was sent this. I don't know what to do of it. * * * Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuable contribution to the list but would rather not subscribe to it, please send an email to foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org and we will forward your post to the list. Please be aware that all messages to this list are archived and viewable for the public. If you have a confidential communication to make, please rather email i...@wikimedia.org Thank you. Please forward my message to the public. Cyrano, back earlier Message follows: However we could encourage donations by having a static page that is part of the UI of each project that prominently lists everyone who has donated to WMF. e.g. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Forgive me if I enter this conversation without reading the last hundreds of mails, but I see we are talking about 'sponsorship, yes or no ?' here. A recurrent question my good sirs. Who is pushing it this time? Who is expecting a lot of money from it? Because there is a lot of money to make from the 6th site of the world. Did the foundation explained it to you? Do we have a problem with the current fund raising model and campaign. Do we have big sudden urgent monetary need? I thought we didn't. I thought that Wikipedia and Wikimedia were non-profit projects. So why are we even discussing sponsorship? Have we any financial problem? Do we want to allow rich organizations to start casting their monetary vote into what we should do? Shouldn't we remain stoically independent by receiving only voluntary donations and voluntary efforts from good wills guided by universal principles? Is there a consensus from the Foundation about this? I'd like a quick and honest answer from each of the member. Is it acceptable to accept money from organizations like Virgins which pursues lucre before free knowledge for anybody? I firmly vote no until I have a full understanding of the financial need of risking the financial autonomy of wikimedian projects. And I'm quite alarmed to be discussing this. Cyrano, back from the moon. - PD: Will the next step be signing contracts where we allow Virgins to say buy the last cd of [insert star name here] and support Wikipedia! Yes! Virgin supports Wikipedia! Virgin loves knowledge. Virgins thinks, with a tear in the eyes, that any kid should have the right to education, damn it!. Virgin is your friend, see? So each time you buy a CD, Virgins Unite (we though at first Virgins IsYourFriend but we we're told we were too obvious) gives one cent to the big encyclopedia online that everybody shares! See? Look at our logo on their site! LOOK AT IT MY SWEET CHILD, AND BUY MY PRODUCTS! Oh boy, I can't wait too see it in its full splendor now that we catched the tail of the devil. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM1530AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L9QAIAOknFAJwwR1TXZ/HX82xHINE 9YOqz+YEhqXCLOhGphcLPIroZ+biOfnHyGUWobUwwVUHD++0HLXnvEiypOQyFmwH /h1kaVOeBGOyk6zsZc22dMXX4yftUHikc8bRyW93rYWU6ntO0UF0XM3yoFJYTw+a 2QT96g5MakMKB8secMBHi8KiFgFBcuntgsNNTPqHFQNRuIeDqg4ohYEKf0FoOFdc 1P9QpguW36bDPejIfJRZxKk/QZLSrWpjKKOQl3x96zYx07W6HHcAQuFbfNgY9Vyk 1CPyHfVDFAvrA/OIOeieOpVgB7GUnozoq9kaHPQks24nktmBmZ+I73C6OVoXf5c= =uVHN -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Liu Xiaobo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I think it is not fair to censor Peter and then still talk about him and what he said. One or the other can be justified (and should be), but not both at the same time. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMr7CyAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L0sEH/RdbZxN7Rco3arDLZReUh0qx i0FfdXX5xzxvxh38+bmNvdmfejddHSLq+vyxRWuiI1LO3qCGbz3ZZMx9s7t1wnoc z0vtOeaz0EU5tg6SagNuhS5K/HiXkumVfeaJepcJjTKHrl3Ulq0L/IG5TPf0YTjV 06AHwRvEg1Siet1rQMZpzay6XmhtU/kTdgnMxnZU9hs8qKk8BD07Mp1v2EoTYE5+ alNNxw3/dD4VwYejRo6QN9aWxmuZKVvzPq0iggTZT125wYO6vWfwbe2qcGCMpz42 3TK5EWopT2Lt02Vnr6p6DoODbTsEtFRHJLU0mIGvqQ/SIWURxF3ZA/XBNSQ05ro= =nAdA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/10/2010 19:48, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: What is the main point of wikipedia to edit it, or to read it? Could it be both or do we get to choose only one? NOTE: when reading an article or a book one rarely looks at the references. They are, in the main, a distraction. This is not my case nor my perception about it. Besides, they are not just notes, but references. References are important to build traceable knowledge layer after layer. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMq2u3AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LfEYIAJG1keR2ovZOWCBW64I5O1qg Fwej27v/yAIx8QTgobAP3TjMlQInP2Hn4T6bilIu2FHRQvLYUz1DiyvsPNBYxj+n ftaR+vrKk/gRgAJ1y3qN/Bw5UnUDd4YTjsnl1CcETdEg6UcUuC4/v8L33NMLeXL7 8pXrkafhEaRqWn8RNI+RuabAoaR1HgTXh+iy7NQJLZkjAvpv2Jyw/WENKIUq7tDM qAt5i1Q9VnipmnCaLbIJWDB2Ui4Hxpj2gwV4uOSzVJvmmFnJcR7ANgn2TbvjR1j6 A9CTg6DSl2csw90RNNIQzembP/5Zt4oMTB+/Tg1E6iKDh5Av8iadHCh7HOiN97E= =VFM3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I still have 80 mails to read to be up-to-date about the current polemic, but I would like to ask a question to you Peter. You said that experts can bring knowledge to readers, but that some editors are aggressive idiots with whom there is no possible discussion. This attitude towards expert knowledge is certainly also present amidst readers - it is simply not detected because of a lack of interaction with them. So, Peter, how is this communication failure [1] (and I think the mails I attached are a good sample of it, without judging who is right in calling the other an idiot) towards idiot editors is different from towards idiot readers? Apologies if my wording is bad, but as you would said, it's just a formal question, the knowledge is the same. :) [1]: according to this goal: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. On 02/10/2010 19:21, Peter Damian wrote: - Original Message - From: wjhon...@aol.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? You can't spell, you can't write, you shift ground constantly, you fail to understand even the most basic point. Your understanding of the subject is in inverse proportion to you arrogance and hostility. Wikipedia is full of people like you. This of course will be used as proof that specialists do not understand Wikipedia and are therefore unwelcome. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l On 02/10/2010 19:17, Peter Damian wrote: - Original Message - From: wjhon...@aol.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? Haven't you ever read Atlas Shrugged! OK you're a nutcase. Sorry. This is exactly the problem I have with Wikipedia. End of conversation. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMqcPoAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L/EAH/1v8OTs9wSPO8xA9EeOPmv+l c4ZZ3gRa8OL5Oj8IXQ+L8oIMIaJtxl7rAppSuLjv15/zi0oZbKepTvdKj0nus8Lr F8G+evtoSeW+n0j5xcRmEYHfLaCGD6quT50NK7T57TFRVN37061ZNEJapC5aHda0 npgfJ0MsU+dVNe5f8Z74IHEX0eVO+vQU9NBQc4JC2zFw7vCG+tv8Y6QYLCmXtoZB 9kGpkDAj2isK9DTk9gR3vEq6udDR6P4ysxC/spJIZNXaPTv3FUBdrjiZsPApawxA NJsXIxKhcVevAkTGgWR4HAwRb5WTKIElAV4FgFKqaLB3KvV1OkXVKmitLR9U3B8= =fcla -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thank you, your answers reveal quite clearly your vision. (I disagree, though, but that's not important). A few comments below... On 04/10/2010 15:58, Peter Damian wrote: How is the problem of making a difficult subject clear different in the case of editors than readers? That's an interesting one. Good teaching and communication is about getting the maximum number of interested people to get the intended idea across. This is very difficult. Even in the best case, I estimate only about 20% of people will understand in any way what you are saying. A simple proof of this is exam results. In any exam (an exam being a method of test which aims to assess how well some one has understood the teaching) there is a neat dispersion of results. There is always a bottom 10 percentile of those who sadly don't get it, and frankly probably ever aren't going to get it. I disagree about the never. I think it depends greatly about the methods and means to reach them. I'm a realist. Your realism seems strongly context-dependent, with a narrow set of contexts considered. Your conclusions are probably valid for it, but you're not talking about the world at large, in my point of view. IMHO you're talking, maybe without realizing the range of your ideas, about a specific occurrence of knowledge communication (university teaching between 1980 and 2010, say) and I don't think this is all there is to understand about it. If this discussion was about the contexts of teaching and communicating instead of the statistical results in already known environments, I wonder if you would still bear a fatalist (elitist?) point of view about mankind's intellectual capacity. Personnaly I think there is only a bottom 10 percentile of those who are born mentally limited, whatever the education and communication they receive, they're doomed. The difference with your stats shows what we CAN do something about. Now most of those bottom 10% realise this, and will go away to study something more congenial. Most of them. There is a tiny tiny fraction of those who don't get it, who believe they are fundamentally right, and that the teachers are wrong, and that they have been done some injustice, and the world owes them something. Now the problem: in the old days that bottom percentile fraction would self-publish some rant or other, or would just go away. But now there is this thing called Wikipedia which is practically inviting them to edit. It says anyone can edit. It seems that you think that Wikipedia is behaving as a magnet for obtuse people, for one hand. On the other hand, you seem to think that what the wiki system does about the heterogeneity of the editors is filtering out the quality. This may well be true in some cases. But I think that the opposite can also happen, and that changes everything. I have the belief that on the long term, open people and high quality have a higher potential on Wikipedia, if we aim to set the conditions for their thriving. Let's go back to your example: I estimate only about 20% of people will understand in any way what you are saying. Somewhere, sometime, there is certainly someone that can make 21% of people understand a specific topic. It's not necessarily an expert, though he should be able to understand them. So imagine we find him and make an article out of his teaching. Then we have gain 1% of audience and consensus of understanding (you may disagree but you understand and respect what is said). With this reductio ad minimum I just want to show that levelling up quality is possible: thus putting the failure on the idiots is not giving our best shot. I had an experience with such an editor in late 2006. He fundamentally wrecked the Philosophy article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophyoffset=20061228033655action=history, drove away a fine bunch of editors, and the article has never really recovered since (a group of us act as caretakers but on the principle of preventing any change, not improving it. I quote again from Mel Etitis (who himself was a casualty of this incident) Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on my subject? Because it's hopeless. I've tried at various times, and each time have given up in depressed disgust. Philosophy seems to attract aggressive zealots who know a little (often a very little), who lack understanding of key concepts, terms, etc., and who attempt to take over the article (and its Talk page) with rambling, ground-shifting, often barely comprehensible rants against those who disagree with them. Life's too short. I just tell my students and anyone else I know not to read the Wikipedia article except for a laugh. It's one of those areas where the ochlocratic nature of Wikipedia really comes a cropper. I've read this text like 3 or 4 times in this discussion now. Why are you repeating this
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/10/2010 17:54, Peter Damian wrote: - Original Message - From: Noein prono...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? I am sincerely asking you, without insinuation: how do you know you're not one of them? What's the difference between the one who knows he knows and the one who doesn't know he doesn't know if it's only about self-perception (or social perception)? Where is the universality of knowledge in this conception if it boils down to intimate convictions ? There are well-established mechanisms for determining this. I have had many papers published, I am currently working collaboratively with another academic on a book on medieval philosophy. I have no problem working with people who understand the rules, I am told the quality of my work is good. This social acceptance (or credentials if you prefer) has a weak epistemological value.[1] It's only convincing for the people of your own circle - whether they're right or wrong is of no relevance -. For people outside your circle, with whom you can't discuss or don't want to, the arguments for your views are reduced to the authority: authority of the number of believers, prestige and ranks of the apostles, influence and mediatisation of the message, power and fearsomeness of the church you belong to, if you allow me to use an analogy. This unilateral way of handling down knowledge to the rest of mankind is a fertile ground for domination about the rights to talk, the ways to think, about the decisions that are to be taken. I'm not saying it's currently happening in your circle. I'm saying that it's an obsolete model for the sharing, free, collaborative, massive project that is wikipedia, and that you won't be able to force it on most individuals. Many editors, I believe, claim some sort of independence of thought, though many don't have the required knowledge to back it up, and I think this is the correct model from which a universal knowledge can be build, despite its current limits (giving the same powers to the ignorant than to the savant). Teach a mind to be critical and it can learn everything. Teach a mind what you believe and you just shaped a sheep. If it's about choosing between expert knowledge and independence of mind, I personally prefer the latter, because it will slowly but ultimately lead to the first, while the reciprocal is not guaranteed. Dealing with humans is much more annoying than with flocks, but that's the only way forward I can envision. That's why I believe that Wikipedia is right demanding sources and objective (not social ones) arguments. Although there is still some indecision if an article should be about what people said (a historical and literal approach), what they thought (a more comprehensive and philosophical one) or what the denoted reality is (a more scientific and objective one). Note, Peter, that I am not rejecting the value of your knowledge, your critics about quality of articles or your proposals. I only disagree about your model of communication of knowledge for wikipedia. [1]: following popperian criteria. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMqgUsAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LE/MH/RzfF5fEk9+voftj3fAISAk6 UDzrzPfz/GjTvzbIAc4Vq3XesUsZ2T5ioJ+lcQB3oe31No1RYv3Q8u0heQet9IDo DMFrk0PlWvo8xK6H/7c+h6hXmYCi7Ub1rWu+jtQ+J0LlCwZQASSPFDul2Ahy2B0o P+FIvabE6Msfx+6FLNTlM5NArjfF2St43BobgsTLU5+aVbmGdDLAJI38rruPsG++ 8qxU79dOv9/OhweSfDQGcjZwxU5lu3Wtb7WjcYmHSrp1W1GGhGAsZmDLqM7RMUDc QunkAZxu6FsvZdVbNP6Ufn8X0EW5nDZOepUcZ1kECjARMw3UAnfOHFH4oLwyaqA= =Btvi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/09/2010 19:47, Peter Damian wrote: To the other Wikipedians here: is there a problem with academics 'talking down'? Do they have a problem explaining their ideas in articles? Are they 'too rarified' to be included in Wikipedia? If so, can Wikipedia do without them? If not, how could they be encouraged to contribute better? I think the wikipedia project is about an universal access to knowledge, not an elitist one. Experts are respected because they have studied deeply, but they *must* be able to transmit this knowledge to have a place in wikipedia, in my opinion. This transmission is about plain and clear explanations of the arguments, of the proofs and of the clusters of hints leading to an interpretation or a conclusion. It's about extracting from dozens of years of experience the main reasoning and sources to be considered. It's about being critical and analytical towards one's own knowledge. I believe there is no knowledge without understanding and being able to check the sources, and thus there is no universality of knowledge if one needs to pertain to a certain clique to understand something, or if one needs as much experience in the domain as an expert. Any article written by an expert should be understandable to a motivated but first-time reader profane. And I mean understanding in the strong meaning of the word, which knowing why the article is declaring this or that given the references and the arguments. As for the expert training that Peter Damian mention several times, I think it is not convincing per se because a training can as well teach to think critically (i.e., questioning permanently what you know and why you believe it) as to think according to a set of doctrines. So instead of believing experts (or anybody) because they say so, everyone should document, reference, argument and construct the knowledge put into articles. Finally, what distinguishes the obscurantism from science is the demand to be open to criticism: any idea is just a proposal (an hypothesis) and its believers must accept discussing it on a epistemological level. In consequence, the top-down approach cannot be acceptable on wikipedia, at least not as a winning argument. Not out of disrespect, but because universal knowledge cannot follow an initiatic model (i.e., you only understand if you think as dictated by a hierarchy). These considerations are not limited to the interactions between experts and profanes. Long time editors who feel at home with their pet articles tend to be closed-minded towards newbies and new approaches, in my observations. Having said that, I think there is a problem with the quality of some articles, even some about hard science, which I interpret, amidst other causes, as due to a lack of rigor with citing primary sources. Without them, the controversies have no tangible common grounds - which is an unsolvable problem -. I think a huge effort should be put in motion to clarify, inspect and distinguish the quality, authenticity and primarity of the sources. Any new science starts by compiling lists and nomenclatures of its items, which are pieces of knowledge represented by articles in the case of an encyclopaedia. Then it refines its epistemology to build further. Too much undiscriminated information (about a same topic) is just noise. And how to discriminate intelligently other by checking the link of the premises to reality (their veracity and primarity) and the validity of the reasonings? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMoGjEAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LESUIAJMprDdXJe4TMcWU6exVLYzN 5qCXyj58agL9jvcW8fyNjbCWWYC3J9qIBvedSRq9eYBhH5EMhKcBg/hwQrQ8xSdb 3urOSKPRqW7NvNRDMSa1WiroRZh0BlUNomj4xDMBbN4DyQm/QdblbrDuLB0krL/I op82UsF8EB4DRr0rAA01yrT1XgoJ2Hjg9vnjrkBDNAZqD8jA4GQeqlJ21hAIAshP tAReIEd4IZf7mSDU736UcTO6WG7JRCZ7s7W7+b0z3/VZ98vkNAI0h9/M4ZKKAGvy ueMI5S4HQPTYSrr4f/Sg4b5iP2XbVqR1DQmxxRhZXt8u60Orviihtjc4BXDMOmE= =kwQk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] Community vs. centralized development
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I couldn't have said it as well. I agree with the concerns of Jamie and their importance. On 13/09/2010 22:14, emijrp wrote: Hi all; I think that Jamie has started an important topic. I don't think that WMF is going to usurp Wikipedia and the sister projects now or in the future, but it is statistically possible. If we want to protect us, the human knowledge and our work of this hypothetical scenario, we need complete full dumps frequently. But this scenario is a malicious one, and I think that there are many more dangerous posibilities, and unfortunately, they are common. For example, small or massive lost of data due to natural disasters, crackers attacks, stolen passwords, hardware and software bugs, sudden crazy sysops, and _human errors_. Is WMF ready for that? Long time ago I searched info about that, but I only found these links[1][2]. Recently, I have been concerned about this again. Most of the Wiki[mp]edia projects are small, and their full backups are updated every week[3] and they can be stored everywhere, but the largest ones like English Wikipedia gets outdated soon[4] (now, it is +200 days old). I don't know so much about the infrastructure and how WMF servers are allocated around the world, so, I want to ask a simple question: In the case of a complete disaster in the main servers, will WMF be able to restore all the Wiki[mp]edia contain using backups? We got a terrible fright when 3000 images were deleted accidentally in 2008[5] and I think that not all were recovered. When people ask about images dump the most common reply is: Are you going to store 7 TB (Commons)? I can't store that at home of course, but, I'm sure that a few universities or entities around the world can, not only for backup purposes, for researching too (in full resolution or thumbs). Also, I think that we need to start mirroring Wiki[mp]edia dumps to other servers around the globe, as the common GNU/Linux ISOs mirrors do. Also, Library of Congress said some time ago that they are going to save a copy of all the tweets sent to Twitter.[6] When are they going to save a copy of Wiki[mp]edia? I hope we have learnt a bit since Library of Alexandria was destroyed. I don't want that an error moves us back to January 15, 2001. Regards, emijrp [1] http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Disaster_Recovery [2] http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Offsite_Backups [3] http://download.wikimedia.org/ [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Wikipedia_Archive [5] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2008-September/039265.html [6] http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/loc-google-twitter/ 2010/9/8 Jamie Morken jmor...@shaw.ca Hi, I was involved in an open source project that was usurped by one of the main developers for the sole reason of making money, and that project continues now to take advantage of the community to increase the profit of that developer. I never would have thought such a thing was possible until I saw that happen. If that developer wasn't acting greedy, there would now be open source hardware for radio transceivers of all types, but instead there is only open source software for radio of all types. I find it a shame, and when I was working on that project I could *feel* it being usurped! I unfortunately may be paranoid as I feel the same thing here with the wikimedia foundation usurping wikipedia. If you don't believe me, just consider that it is a very gradual process, like getting people used to not being able to download image dumps anymore, and ignoring ALL requests to restore this functionality. Also failing to provide full history backups of the flagship wiki. These two facts allow the wikimedia foundation to maintain the control of intellectual property that wasn't created by the people. If you want the wikimedia foundation to respect you as volunteers, you will have to DEMAND respect by making sure that they never usurp the project. I think the best way to do this is to make sure we can all download up to date full history with images wikipedia's so a fork at any time is possible. Sure it may be paranoid, but trust me it is worth it to be paranoid regarding a project as important as wikipedia. I have been in situations like this before, I wish I had acted before even if I was wrong! I wouldn't even be speaking now except for reading the heart-felt words of volunteers in this thread that are unhappy with how the wikimedia foundation is running. We need to organize to get wikimedia foundation to release images tarballs, they are only ignoring multiple requests to do so, so far. cheers, Jamie ___ Wikitech-l mailing list wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ foundation-l mailing list
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Chapter Development Director job posting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If I understand correctly the situation, the USA community currently interact with Wikipedia through the Foundation or the en. chapter, which are not necessarily representative of their interests. The point of view that a chapter should represent the USA community depends strongly of what is a chapter. I still don't know if it is a geopolitical, a cultural, a social or a linguistic entity... Anyway, there's the concern that a community deprived of proper identity and voice is easily ignored. As for the Foundation, I'm still not sure what role people are expecting from it. Some comments now and then make me believe that a significant share think of it as a leading, decision-making, representing and executing role. Other think the foundation should only play a pragmatic, executive auxiliary role, implementing the will and decisions of the communities, USA community included. I believe the separation of powers to be healthy. As for the global and international concerns... Cultural centrism or insularism cannot be at the core of the big goal of an universal access to knowledge: they're a certain path to failure. The latest conflicts about censorship and NPOV have shown, IMHO, that they cannot be solved without distinguishing the few principles aimed to the sharing and collective building of knowledge from the cultural values - the western ones included. Yet, the en.wikipedia is much more developed than the others and seems to be progressing faster. Like a sun with a few satellites orbiting. The motor doesn't distribute its energy to everybody, it mainly benefits itself because it is not decentralized. Thus, it creates a cultural inequality and domination. I wonder if this tendency can be smoothed. I wonder also how this is perceived by the rest of the world. The english and american imperialisms are strongly present in their minds. Wikipedia should avoid to look like yet another tool of cultural domination. Thus, to favor the emergent chapters the USA community should have its own chapter. It should have no more power of decision than the others and certainly not a privileged relationship with the Foundation. The Foundation should aim to be less insular and a clear separation from the national concerns would help. On 23/08/2010 12:55, theo10011 wrote: I do agree with some of what Mr. Meijssen said in the last email but not all of it. Yes, there might be a bias with some of the new projects being undertaken in the US specifically, but outside of Europe there are very few chapters who would be in a position to take on university collaborated projects without some sort of experience and help from the foundation. The Idea that it is expensive to undertake projects in the US compared to the rest of the world in illusory, the costs incurred in lets say the UK or Germany might be higher than the US, simply because of the foundation is located across the Atlantic, their would be much higher travel cost and more paperwork involved when dealing with large institutions, not to mention a language barrier which might be prohibitive in the rest of the EU. With that said I do agree with Mr. Meijssen that the foundation might mix national and international priorities at some occasions. A wider representation using one of the EU chapters could easily be achieved especially in the case of the recent university projects. Regards Salmaan On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, The USA is a sizeable country. But it is not unique in that. Russia is certainly bigger and India is certainly more populous. Both Russia and India have one chapter. When the Wikimedia Foundation runs a project, it should be obvious that such a project can be easily understood from its perspective. For me the WMF is a worldwide organisation and consequently its actions should be acceptable from that perspective. When the WMF runs a pilot project like the current public policy project, it should therefore conform with its global perspective. Given that it is about SUBJECT MATTER whose appreciation differs from country to country it is weird that no foreign universities are part of this project. It is also easy to argue that from a cost point of view, this project requires less funding when it is run in many other countries. The fact that it is run only in the USA also has NPOV implications. The issue is that when there is an USA chapter and this project was run by the chapter, such reservations would not be as potent. Mixing national and international priorities is not appropriate. Thanks, GerardM On 23 August 2010 08:56, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: I have to chime in to echo that the size of the USA and the fact that it is populated throughout is an issue for a general USA chapter. I attended a meetup in Nashville, Tennessee, which had people from five states
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia France Wikimania Scholarships (was Re: Money, politics and corruption)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21/07/2010 01:57, Florence Devouard wrote: This decision was approved on the 24th of may and was advertised in various (french speaking) venues. The scholarship only proposed two different types of packages: 250 euros or 500 euros. There was no requirement of nationality or location, though we would probably have focused on French participants. A commission was receiving the scholarship requests and approving them. Scholars had two main obligations : - actually being at the conference :) - report after the conference In spite of sufficient time, not all scholarships were distributed, which is quite unfortunate. However, the number of French participants had never been as high in a Wikimania. Out of curiosity, would contacting the french-speaking registered users of en. and fr. wikipedia have been a good advertisement strategy? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMRqkfAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LNREIAODyR10iih7bLzmvoZFmGaJj nUtmqQQF4vzMtXYwhdG59Ykmj5V1tr46V0XmIQvGIAF3Jiv+tn6Vdu/P3Nns2SNX xk6GRzn7e7pldp3K0GTUmMf/NIXHF+rktetd1L/HeZqeH3BX9gJ0CL1Omfu3VD2z TzILWK9yyu+W6l2ANc2JWdEEdhsHtN3NydJsj21ER8Qi2RTcJWVRca45pcyFu+aO JCoEdfjBVz10A7LYBf7nwhXdLan2+GkKCKNNN28G+tImmfDlS2t8uiPtKDkiThcz WBIoPWXWozCZzEFFqFMfeovLQ/YyxWFHsbYJRi4MeBQocRH6/xlmSgUr7kRCY5s= =yjlQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy one language - one Wikipedia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just my 2c thoughts exploring the idea. I don't know if wikipedia should have a chapter specific to children because it would be culturally biased by our views about education. I think it would be better to aim for a specific psychological profile and skills, ie: - - for the non-semantic persons (who don't rely much on words), more direct images (or photos) and animations (or videos). For example explaining the size of the sun and of planets showing their relative size works better than sheer numbers for most of people, or at least is a necessary intermediate step for understanding the numbers. - - for people not fluent with vocabulary, use only the 500 (200? 1000?) most common english words (a bot could signal rare words) - - for people with few abstracting skills, use concrete objects and familiar analogies to explain (like explaining the curve of 3d space with a sheet of paper) - - replace complex equations with qualitative explanations - - Etc. Also, for illiterate persons, it would be great to include a play button that would automatically read the article out loud. It should be included so that illiterate persons don't have to install their own text-to-speech software. What would really be interesting would be to study people with internet access who *don't* use wikipedia because they feel uneasy or find it unadapted or too difficult. Find the main psychological categories of these people and understand how to interact with them and transmit them information, and define the kind of chapter that they'd need. Eventually, check if several of those special chapter could be merged (for example, visual.wikipedia with analogous.wikipedia). Then check if there are voluntaries for this work and the sum of work required. On 28/06/2010 20:40, Ting Chen wrote: Hello Ziko, speaking for myself. I am for such an approach. But I would also like to see such a project, because it is so important, to be prepared carefully. The suggestions is not made the first time, and last time when the suggetion was on meta, it was discussed until no one can give it a chance anymore. I also don't see such a project really as a compititor to the adult Wikipedia. I think both projects can benefit from each other alot. Now one step back. Encyclopedia for kids is not new. A lot of classic encyclopedia has their kid version. This shows that a kid encyclopedia is not just an encyclopedia in dumn language. Contrarily, I think a kid encyclopedia is far more challenging to write, because you need more pedagogic skills. And building up such skills by our contributors can again benefit Wikipedia. There are also other online kid encyclopedia from which we can learn from their experiences. I definitively would like to see what Robert would find out in this respect and how his research can encourage us or help us in this new endeavor. Greetings Ting Ziko van Dijk wrote: Hello, It seems to me doubtless that there is a substantial number of active Wikimedians who see the need in a simple or children-encyclopedia and would like to invest some of their own sweat, blood and tears. Others, who disagree, may stand on the side line and comment if they like. There are a lot of single questions when defining the exact scope etc., but the main question remains: Would WMF accept such a project, or would it reject it for being just another Wikipedia in already existing languages. So, how different the new project must be from Wikipedia. The original fear is that a linguistic group is split into two communities whereas the forces usually should be concentrated in one Wikipedia. A Wikipedia in simple English, we were told, is essentially a Wikipedia in English. But if a project, for example, directs itself to a relativeley limited group of readers (children), with consequences for the content (limited length of articles, no explicit images), usage of language (no hard words), wouldn't it be different enough from a usual Wikipedia? Kind regards Ziko 2010/6/27 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de: Hello Milos, reading your mail below I am wondering why your reaction on my first mail was so aggressive. It looks to me as if your consideration is not that far away from mine. Especially I wrote in my suggestion that first of all the project must have a very clearly defined scope and audiance, second that it should have a more rigid editorial and anti-vandal mechanism and third that we need more research. Greetings Ting Milos Rancic wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: The difference was that Wikipedia was not made for young people. If I run a social group for adults and there are issues with children who visit, I can blame it on their parents and say they should control them better. If I run a social group for children, I'm now a childcare provider and have a greater
Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Oh, this function is very interesting. If it were coupled with a function to get synonyms and metonyms (ie, equidae, mount) as a proposal to enlarge or explore a concept, then a semantic map would be created to navigate Commons in all languages. Maybe context-related or frequently-associated keywords would be useful too. On 23/06/2010 05:51, John Doe wrote: the basic translation matrix is in place, here is how you say horse in as many languages as you can: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%CE%94/Sandboxoldid=40748125 John On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:56 PM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: Since I'm a fairly active programmer, I have some code sitting around. If I can get some support on commons with regards to templates (something that gives me nightmares) I could probably get a translation matrix program up and running within 24-48 hours. I would just need to figure out a good method for tracking what needs translated, what has been machine translated and needs review, and what has already been translated. John On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.comwrote: If we consider that current English native speakers mostly already have internet and those without internet are likelier than not to be non-English speakers I would be careful to advocate the unilateral use of English. As would I, though I don't think you mean what you said. Why not? To me, it means that we're widening the digital divide by making it so that people who don't have the internet would have little use for it anyways if it's all written in a language they don't understand. m. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMIZktAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LvWgIAIQCIz32wbGENNRRezW3IkpH X2JCgvgEcAWOK8tOxCtZ2k/3pjFXE/bpIMl6suqhUj76yVx0g6zrqIICfN/+A1Q4 7mzlPiKKaMWTrZNCZKSdk/VF5nrjQy0guc85EiEqN/CUtRxXTwnM1huI9IpHb3b8 E96w62KhXjy1xNCARjN9xJf0p84ntMNctQOs8AxrloL5a29HQzKJsGSCVAgwbpfJ TU1HSfPcHMAG/OSUfx8Cq0J0lAVQTlIPsX3RSb461ll19QvgZ0giK0jCGvul5KDy 2g66tQZ4rVxVpVvwgz2CtcdZzy3/sX0//Uiq8CMxuTsMa2+vxIpZuBZsSwGFQX0= =ihfP -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/06/2010 23:23, Keegan Peterzell wrote: If you're never read it, you'd probably enjoy this article from the Journal of American History penned by the late, great Dr. Roy Rosenzweig from June 2006: http://chnm.gmu.edu/essays-on-history-new-media/essays/?essayid=42 Lot of useful information, thank you. I'd like to pinpoint a few arguments from it: Among other things, the no original research policy limiting expert implication... I was always bothered by Wikipedia being a repository of traditional knowledge but not novel, challenging, trying ideas. Why not add a tab for each article, called hypothesis where original research is tolerated, though all the other wp rules still apply? People who don't want speculation or dubious content would read the main tab, people who want to know possible interpretations and hypothesis would also read the secondary tab. Also, it seems that experts and academicians don't like being challenged by profanes. (I think they need to learn to be) The Internet would now grind to a halt without such free and open-source resources as the operating system Linux, the Web server software Apache, the database MySql, and the programming language php. If someone can backup this affirmation with studies and sources, I would be grateful. I think there is a direct link between free software and free knowledge and culture. The transformation of solutions and ideas into proprietary goods with monetary value is a dead end, I think, and the major obstacle to progress and freedom. But it's extremely difficult to prove or disprove this theory because of the magnitude and complexity of its scope. However, it is essential to try to understand what is happening and what may happen with knowledge, both with the traditional systems and the free ones like wp. If we manage to have a clear idea and model of it, we can build better our philosophy, explain it better, and possibly achieve a bigger consensus. Back on the subject of encouraging participation, a general consideration: Practical solutions are immediate and efficient, but usually lead to unwanted deviations from the principles. So one should always ask himself or herself, what are the consequences of this practical solution? How strong is the change of perspective it introduces? Is this change desirable, mergeable with our main goals, or at least reversible? Or will we corrupt our direction for too long (or forever) if we implement this working approach? This questioning is notable with the recent questions of attracting more users, of censorship and of attracting experts. Should we retain our policies and stall our development or should we introduce change to keep growing? My point is to judge the impact of the change comparing it to our long-term direction. We cannot trade a short-term benefit for a long-term goal (expressed in our policies) if the modifications cannot be changed later. If we cede to censorship, can we regain our loss of independance? If we invite frivolous minds, can we educate them? If we give privileges to experts, can we teach them to rescind them later? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMH53tAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LDk4IAOOWkp0UQ9rcZ3HSv/og+GYu 9nF83JJz0LJ51GtPh28vcapxLsOghmFVGCrd/tD9AesGj9uh3F5LhAi/THxEJDxu wY+YpCN/A/6poTxaazy7x06n+cdJ3Yo3Q4UYdA9XP3V63352m/kp7hIT2hArhqeL wqxP58PD2XNEMgg3E8LX2UfdD7gLp6jB+Cd+F7Zmiw5mvLJ8y0j3CnH0yR19PxVs BCI1DZKZKOdfoAN+Jo2H8yxhe3zeIgwS5nEyJ5iJIvkt5Iuu2Yv8cjOS5NIsJ2e3 0zUZWiMmHSaxbDV9KsF2mgotNluYej5LOBOrdkeAsZeybkc5Q2eb+w2D4EPQe1o= =VnOr -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Donation of Encyclopedic Entries on Famous Poems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Oh Kubla Khan! Jorge Luis Borges was fond of the palace's story and the poem. Thank you for your hard work. On 22/06/2010 02:05, Jeffrey Peters wrote: Dear List, My name is Jeffrey Peters, a professional researcher who is currently working on my dissertation (dealing with Romantic poetry) and in addition Masters in Classical Lit. I am writing to you today to announce the donation of two fully written pages on two important poems of the English language: Wordsworth's *Ode: Intimations of Immortality* and Coleridge's *Kubla Khan*. Their current pages are almost stub level and contain many errors and problems. Both rewrites/expansions can be found on Simple Wikipedia, a project that is noble and deserves more involvement by the community as a whole: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Ode:_Intimations_of_Immortality http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ottava_Rima/Kubla_Khan The above are works of love, and I dedicated dozens of hours at multiple DC university libraries compiling research that, as far as I can tell, cannot be found elsewhere in such a complete and concise form in print or on the internet. I have provided my time and abilities to produce the page for the betterment of the WMF and Wikipedia as a whole. I do so because of four individuals who have inspired me over the last year: Jimbo Wales (for his dedication to the idea of a free and complete encyclopedia), Samuel Klein (for his dedication to the projects and valiant effort to ensure high quality), Cary Bass (for the massive amount of time he puts in ensuring that volunteers are able to succeed), and Philippe Beaudette (for striving to make the WMF more academic friendly). Previously, I donated the material for Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard but I did not compile one whole page with every aspect but included material in a piecemeal fashion. This did not work as well as I hoped, so I put in the additional effort to ensure that the pages can be considered complete, though they may need additional minor copyedits to remove any final errors. I hope that my donation today will aid Wikipedia's continuing quest to provide a free and educational encyclopedia, and I hope that the level of effort and critical eye, to an extent that appears unrivaled in any current poetry page (even in my previous works), will attract more people to Wikipedia who shall do the same. Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMICqBAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LAooH/i35RV7GdKN+IByqbbDBwrJt mMrUNqCLfEwn1PWw29ld9d0nyCWsZK/cc+390lguipIdRn1hyNnX8yuhjomv9OOb LnE6ZfpHIf9wUNhgUPHuol0/CHPu/Re6QP1euRm+Qpbtg+Hhhh9j/JNbkb+CyaHK UGyiu/iIVVPeDDxBHo4TcoCfE30t2/2osr5im3ykZVUA7FnWVEH1ORIelPNuBkRz dVjMqISyDqFzt2GSfLrfzj0YPeRlQI9m5aYENdFVS0JipusnKTTPY6VO6RKC7nhu bOs+HA80Xw9qXHrRKMaoTn+PaWFdlQg0OCz+LK4UIJaC2PJWVaJSGz1t87YaFlI= =BFvU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Encouraging participation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/06/2010 03:25, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: But now it's standard for any site to have well-structured facepages (profiles) to provide for academic the mean to: * properly introduce himself/herself; * get the idea about who is some other contributor/peer; * communicate with other people in well-structured way (structured by groups with particular interests etc.) with modern means to express support of one's opinion etc. It seems founded. So my point is not increase of distraction from content (as main object of contributor care, intended care I would stress) but the opposite - significant decrease of such distraction by eliminating the need of DIY self-care (which is not intended at all). I think it would be interesting to develop this idea. The last but far not least: if we really would like to attract more academics we have to change socialization policies and/or traditions as academics (most of them) don't like/appreciate blind (anonymous) peer cooperation. We could make a expert class of users, widely known, with admin powers on pages of their domain of expertise, with the possibility to lock articles temporarily from normal editors during edit wars. But they should be expected to give fair attention to alternatives, and respect the NPOV. They would still respond to admins and superadmins. Or would it be too conflicting with the wikimedians principles? I'm always dubious about compromises, because they generally achieve no other goal that artificial consensus at the cost of the conflicting goals. Or we can look at that in such way: if we are talking about credibility of content we have to talk about credibility of contributors as peers in teamwork first. Maybe convincing internationally recognized experts to contribute articles as wp users (like Hawking on Astrophysics) would start the desire among experts to have a say among their peers? So wp could become a little more a place of exchange of expert knowledge. That's why we will need as much of realexact info on facepages as possible plus as much de-virtualization by mean of meetups as possible. Look on experience of de:WP. Why not create Wikipedians clubs in localities and schools that try to maintain a few pages about specific information dear to the members, yet still of encyclopedic value, like the local history or cultural highlights or natural wonders or a local artist or project, or just a shared dream, a story, a feeling, a song, etc. Why not propose to schools to publish the adventurous projects of each classes in a special section of the WMF foundation ? Sincerely, Pavlo On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:16 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: To attract academics this is and must be viewed as a serious endeavor. Yes some aspects such as reverting vandalism could have a fun twist applied to them but the creation of content must remain simple and serious. Wikipedia already has a problem with its image regarding credibility. Things that would affect Wikipedia's image must be carefully considered. I personally do not need further distraction while I edit. Medpedia http://www.medpedia.com/ has more of a facebook appearance to it and for that among other reasons I will not contribute their. We need to keep our goal of writing an encyclopedia first and foremost. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMHl4KAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LQPsH/3zdYUVHtsCezGM13Xx3DR5B LLLzbctmxTbDy+HrkEQWRWZacZvGGNNa6/ke5vKymLphfsurge7+UkJxZFFtHQeC zSgnL3it2sDYSUVhtsGF9s63hzz1L/oUUz7qmKSiNxsM885aCk+t5W729Zt0a/1c DMlKRKjWWowUDJsIHdqQ3g4KbTbhs+zkH+KaCFWQx41cT5otDT73ExlaETaHksYT WTqAm/8mXdjgFP4Np/fJ5m/OyYV35pmE5uZzHAq69MQLKXVTSoOcC7CdYF34lQHV m8zlz4xu/5tCBcRsnOdWIUvhpoXeh4UbHG9jLUhHShKp0Bm60c1NAd9cnjBausg= =4e98 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] encouraging women's participation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Some ideas to increase the social aspect of Wikipedia: - - insert a small chat with channels for each chapter (for example where the interwiki links were ;) ) - - make a tab for personal comments for articles, where people can express their feelings - - show the last 10 comments on the right side of the article - - soften the notability criterion - - make a reward system for spell correction (automatically attributed by bot unless reverted), for adding references (must be validated by moderator or voted by users) - - associate galleries of sounds and/or photos that you can expand or browse with one click - - create challenges or games for wikipedia: charades pointing to an article to be discovered, collections to be completed (find ten articles with x or y characteristics), create fantasy articles only useful for the game with a warning that it's only RPG, etc. - - allow a friend system and allow to import them from facebook - - develop the homepage of wikipedia and wikinews so that they combine major news with the major updates of the pages we are watching, and more information about your friends - - allow a button recommend this article to a friend with feedback from the friend, like a karma count, a thank you count, or the likes etc. On 19/06/2010 08:37, Milos Rancic wrote: On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: Дана Saturday 19 June 2010 07:37:18 Milos Rancic написа: On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: Or perhaps we don't even have to build one, but just use the existing ones. [People are always against making Wikipedia a social network.] Have RSS feeds of articles you created/pictures you uploaded. These could then be connected to Facebook or wherever for your friends to see what are you working on. Then you are using Facebook, not Wikimedia. And Flickr is much better for private photos than Wikimedia. Then your Facebook friends will see that you are doing interesting things on Wikipedia projects and will want to do them too. I don't think that it is particularly interesting to see someone's edits. If you are not a passionate Wikimedian, of course. Besides that, contemporary term for site is social network. There are just more and less successful social networks. Wikimedia is successful social network for a very specific type of demographics: young middle class males. Actually, not so young anymore. I think that we are loosing males from younger generations, too. That means that we have to work on diversification of our editor demographics. And one edit in ten days is better than no edits at all. We need cleverly created concepts which would make editing easy, fun, causal. With a lot of interesting content around; probably, based on existing Wikimedia content, but not necessary. The time when wiki concept was new and interesting passed a few years ago. And even Microsoft has better sense for new technologies than us. For example, our goal is not to make a possibility to read Wikipedia from iPhone. Apple did that. The goal is to have easy access to editing from iPhone. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMHIe3AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6Lq+kH/0YyBREHI09b5cfsBhD3IMBV ozWjpWA2r1//t2cDaiPNpfpyNXoNRwKhCw5m5VtKbmucAiyxLyjqwmPRsh0gZULs 1gNE1bC1DPVKL0R1LZCnCJYngAmhRMODOcwv4abwigA6sqsqdXGfs+07ABHNWVzq hLlM++mEV2z8IjYIxwL7DLK5T1hK8axLSXgmP6PhhawoBZa3K8IjahHk112J8NnZ E2lKjhOs2K4R3aviDKgLONuMXYXSdoaWsV3J5TFdOKTPEWhhsMh55DO2urQyJNFT fJlWLsc3woYaEJrI2ztsLZ9/S+WYUTxoACXK0jmA78sP/e66MlYVYTOi1VOXs/E= =GQMh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] encouraging women's participation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/06/2010 19:53, Keegan Peterzell wrote: My jaw just dropped. While I know these are ideas intended to help increase the socialization, this is turning Wikipedia into youtube. The day that happens I'm resigning all my permissions and packing my bags. Softening notability? Fantasy articles? Games? Live comments? No thanks. I don't think the idea of encouraging women to participate needs these things. I have a fierce dislike for what I consider to be the mind-numbing distraction that social networking sites provide. I'd rather use Wikimedia projects to stimulate my mind, not kill time. Then I made my point. I think futilizing wikipedia is the worst thing we can do. On 19/06/2010 07:30, Nikola Smolenski wrote: Saturday 19 June 2010 05:58:31 Milos Rancic ??: That means that we need games for women. While I think that we should build full social network, just a basic one would help. Or perhaps we don't even have to build one, but just use the existing ones. [People are always against making Wikipedia a social network.] Have RSS feeds of articles you created/pictures you uploaded. These could then be connected to Facebook or wherever for your friends to see what are you working on. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMHTsdAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L+0EIAID3Mr9YKjNNt8WoheHalzw+ n48XQ46nUBbYtb2m38a/IE6TgP1V+rVLb7jvmNZO7wX2CmuO/sW4SlB0phVxcGea ohDgjDga1u4tXEVnikape4uXCrEyup9EgrTDypb/altrF/dOdzQb9DfoEgqlScL7 v0A/FyD4KHHE0/E1ehI2UdmXyxp4+430T7tdWYM9kqeXUfDHifxjXoATvv1ZK707 jzJr4XiwMfZ2QvCC6M8u+KQIJBU0wSx49iRKZCRtqwPtgp6kzPiyDO5jlzIdleuP 2DOPh7MmQQ2Bed7go90AIrgPQG+DnFGfN+WQqzB7QPis8eFxFe3F1hntU8LhAMQ= =SSCl -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] encouraging women's participation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wikipedia should be kept a neutral repository of knowledge, not a social ground for games. Once you take the path of creating a futile community, there is no way to talk about the long term goals of the WMF, the vision, the ethics, the humanity, the knowledge. You just have people who are here to have fun and to socialize. It would add noise, not signal. Moreover, I think attracting readers is very different from attracting editors. I don't see how it would be positive to convince people to edit articles with superficial reasons in mind. However external sites could use the content for games or comments (like Facebook does). This way, the site originating the fun attitude would be distinct from the site about knowledge. Wikipedia would get attention without being invaded. On 19/06/2010 23:58, Sydney Poore wrote: English Wikipedia has numerous contests during the year. Some people regularly participate in them and enjoy them. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest is an example of one that is ongoing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MILCON Picture of the year is popular with some people on Commons. While everyone does not want to be involved in contests, they appeal to some people and I see no problem with us introducing more of them in WMF projects to see if they will draw people into the movement. I feel the same way about encouraging new ways to get different groups of people involved with WMF projects. If gaming can be used to promote an interest in WMF then that is goodness. Puzzles, board games, and even more complex fantasy games using content might be a draw for some people. If someone wants to develop them I would not stand in there way. Combining community service and socializing is very common in community organizations, and is appealing to many people. By adding more social components to WMF projects, we will most likely draw in people that otherwise would not volunteer. I see this as an important tool and one that should not be dismissed if we are going to broaden the base of our volunteers. Sydney Poore (FloNight) On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.netwrote: on 6/19/10 4:58 PM, Keegan Peterzell at keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: snip. There was a great TED speech that I need to look up but don't have the time for at the moment. The premise of the presentation is that studies have shown time and time again that things like games, prizes, awards and other measures of gratitude are only temporary measures to increase motivation. The folks that work for you that are the truly motivated ones and believers in the process do not ask for these rewards. A pat on the back and a good job, thanks for your work because I value it very much occasionally is the only true recognition that is needed. The other fluff only inspires distraction from the goal because it's creating other little goals which, in turn, become more important than the end result. Yes! Prizes denote direct competition as in sports or, more subtly, with the science arts awards. Person-to-person affirmation goes a very long way; and is what collaboration community should be based upon. Give them the climate, and they will give you the culture. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMHUNyAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LUUYIAOM+5k+9DTcEZsjBfrG5gRI2 +QWaqRNB3+H7ax2qculCgBX7Y801SSxkuolnpouhy247xXq/GqH+3/WHGEf9bAd9 dt+D0Dzfhvvl3Ag+vTvcRPWBIaH6ZiZvuO5b6uGa2rmiK6h9C+mJEEcIVmiPtsuH p4vh1xUnB3jjK3fzpkVBdT+4C8+XpViwhdEFzMagBEmCaIh6qABrRhe+f/vC7crZ Ao0IZj/SjNuP4J/nWBjngiFcXabQdBYCarjc5gkWeF8ma75YEqmCBWe4YRcqYyOE Opb5S/V7Zoc3IFq3zJbWaP2WBjY8omHqMA6e5dBYpH8AIEH0XzJCMd6HteGJASI= =RCSg -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Community, collaboration, and cognitive biases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/06/2010 03:28, Aryeh Gregor wrote: I recall reading that IBM improved its participation in the Linux kernel community by getting rid of all internal communications among its kernel developers, meaning they had to use the public project lists to bounce ideas off anyone. I think this idea is key. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMD083AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L4bIIAON6OAXBQTDd8xYycxCX84JV yhRCJBJM76mGCePuKnY7CoGdOi8tPnweLRCDjn2xBBE6N4rbkfjwf/FbeQv2a+YK JO6jg1CHq23QtidNMsJyexufnWuIG+Rjf0AoDFBlWOCW46Fk4GjcAb+gt50EQeL8 POqXJ8AJ2t2UcBJX1CD+ZAuGVU4Nw1IxK1sbSJNjHRE6SJqyRVy4YnJ6Eqiammzk sV7h0Z0EY750etIYErpE7zTShCTlLFdxYzlzAKMlfalIL/BZgYhCsIKSe5AWcVXM 99/40Jx15t0HKcGoleN5oYzZd+hVTlgS3C/NrHlpRGb5A6f1xsF6Dh/+sl7UbhM= =Flfm -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communication
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thank you for your opinions. I'd like to clarify my criticism. What Mike has done and is doing is honorable; he's dedicating efforts and patience to the community. He has nothing to do with my questioning. What I see is that WMF doesn't always publish the problems they're addressing, not in time, not entirely and not in a defined and known place. It seems that the WMF feels it is the correct way to communicate their actions once they're done, synthesizing briefly why to a selected (or random?) sample of the community. Some answers here even suggest that secrecy is necessary, that informing the community about what and why the Board is doing is not feasible or desirable as a norm and as a duty, and that communicating about the situation, intentions and actions of the WMF should be exceptional and under the community pressure, pressure that should be channeled and controlled through trusted community members. I'm not trying to accuse but to put in relief a certain vision of WMF: an enterprise that must survive legally and economically, like any other enterprise. The community is some sort of public, clients and users that one must manage through public relations at best or indifference. In summary, this seems a vision of little accountability towards the community. In contrast, I think the community has other expectations. They feel they own the projects because they made them, they're making them, they will make them. They're not consumers. They're the engine. They identify with the project. They share (more or less) a vision and they search for an ethic together. I think that in their minds, though they owe a lot to the founders, they now are the main part of this adventure. The WMF is paid by them to address what they will tell them to address. According to this vision, the accountability towards the community is total. My words are not good and my vision short. I beg someone with better eloquence and diplomatic skills, with more experience and insight to develop the idea. What I propose is to create a public space where the WMF would announce immediately the claims and pressures they receive, and how they will respond. (just a copy/paste of mails for example). People who want to follow, comment or act upon these kind of news would subscribe to a RSS feed, maybe with a filter for chapters. Correctly set up, this channel between the WMF and the community could be synergetic. It could avoid triggering anger, edit wars and demissions. It could be used as a brain tank to collect data and ideas about the problems that the WMF is facing, even when the WMF is doomed to act on short terms. If the WMF accepts to feed the community with its problems and intentions and listens to the corresponding feedback, most of the communication problems would be defused, in my opinion. I think it is worth an experimental try at least. If it yields positively constructive results, then maybe there should be such a page for each big category of problems that the WMF usually deals with. Oh well, just a (badly expressed) idea. On 05/06/2010 11:29, Bod Notbod wrote: On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: I think if you look at what we did with regard to the Gallimard takedowns... Going back to the original issue regarding communication, the appearance of Mike on this thread shows me that this mailing list is one good way to get the Board's attention. If Mike hadn't been able to deal with an issue and he felt it was important he would just walk across to or email someone who is better placed to respond. On that basis I would say there isn't a communication issue. It might be hard for a newbie to know where to go, but in a way that protects the staff from being overwhelmed by the many millions who visit the site and have a query. I actually think it's a good thing to have barriers to communicating with WMF staff. In that way, we the community become sort of receptionists for them; we can either deal with a complaint or question ourselves or, if it so warrants, bump it up here or directly email the WMF. User:Bodnotbod ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMCjbtAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LDUcH/jv3bi/kkrOnSmIMS4eSbVA6 L79gd/+TVFY9Nk6+B1XkhyMfrc9Q6sZeZ/iv+CQBPEZqRer/ghR7brouTqAhZAL7 7wvTV9Z14OxmHzVCAtEKC8TwsvmwZ8hrBuHbOmP1B9qKmfC16TPuYwJLhRFb+Cd0 1mrftXOvB9sGjWPYoaaBZJuSSTT4bgH0dBN/sdVp9rkNUtjk/Zh/Vyz4pSQJM5gz 0vll3WBhlIiGSb9CAdU6SUN12dicxPB698XZXrWD1ThzHP7WaFkQSwSwfsqWr1xj Fdt9nyKdeH+32hHF9cs0ikEN8iBVf7ROHjX5OfWY8h87FujD39hyjmLwXRFuuGI= =rFAs -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list
[Foundation-l] Communication
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I've been watching the dialogues between the WMF and this mailing list for a while now and most of the conflicts are the same: bad communication. This is apparently not due to individuals but institutional. I'm still ignorant of many aspects of the internal mechanisms and interactions of the WMF, its projects, chapters, communities, sites, tools, pages, agendas and mailing lists and to be honest I think it's a maze. One has to invest months, maybe years of investigation to really know where he should be communicating, searching or waiting for certain kind of information. Maybe these very considerations should be put instead on the meta, on the strategic, on the village pump, on another mailing list, or on several lists, or directed to the WMF, globally or to certain dedicated persons only? So let me ask some genuinely ignorant questions: - - are there somewhere an organizational map and schematics of the overall components of the Wikimedia institutions, projects, foundations, chapters and communities, their governance, roles, duties and interactions, synthesized in one main page instead of dozens, each one in a different part? - - is there one main page instead of dozens for announcements and news, with a RSS feed system, with selectable categories to choose what kind of information one wants to follow ? - - why, simply, the activity of the WMF is not published each day or week? For example why the Gallimard letter and negociations were not made public? why the confidentiality instead of a transparency policy? why the causes, debates and decisions of Jimmy and the board in the recent censorship controversy were not published in time? I sincerely don't understand. - - how a newbie could understand the current activities and projects? where to start? who to contact? - - in case of emergency like the Fox News attack, is there a plan? protocols? a priority channel? plannified meetings and groups of reflexion/discussion? plannified ways of updating the situation, of sharing official declarations and resources? - - are there ways to delegate, federate, synthesize, communicate opinions and information between each community, chapter, board members? I don't mean to force a type of governance or another, but simply to organize the information so it's easier for everybody to know what's happening. Everything seems so fuzzy and chaotic currently. It seems that it all depends of the charism of hyperactive community members and the good will of board trustees. Please enlighten me. On 02/06/2010 23:49, Mike Godwin wrote: On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Yann suggests that he (and the Wikisource community) did not know about the takedown in a timely manner; anyone not watching the files or the deletion logs might have missed it if the only note was in the deletion log. But of course, the deletion log was not the only notice. And Yann Forget knew about the deletions at the time they occurred. If you can't communicate certain facts during negotiations, why not do so afterwards? Sometimes you can. I just did. But of course sometimes you can't, for reasons I've already outlined. (There's nothing magical about the passage of time that eliminates the disincentive effect of disclosing negotiations.) There is some tension built into this general issue, though; Cary advises that the fr.wikisource project needs to make its own decisions about what content to allow, based on a local interpretation of applicable law -- and then the Foundation deletes content without (a) providing advice on what is acceptable and what isn't and (b) without referring to the local decisions the project was advised to take. I'm not sure what advice you think it is even theoretically possible that the Foundation could have offered. Are you suggesting that the Foundation is acting as the lawyer for everyone who posts content to Wikisource? There are obvious reasons that is not a sustainable or feasible model. You seem to have the impression that the Foundation staff directly deleted the content. Actually, I shared the list with Cary, who shared the list with community members who implemented the takedown. (I deleted no content myself.) So you can see why the whole notion that the takedown wasn't shared with the community seems flatly wrong to me. We absolutely engaged community members in implementing the takedown. Yann seems to suggest that our actions have been some kind of big secret. The reality, however, is that we did nothing in secret, and that Yann in fact has known what we did for quite a while now. We even made it trivially easy to contact Gallimard and complain about the takedown. But I do understand that it is easier to complain about WMF than it is to pursue Gallimard directly, even though doing the latter might be a more effective choice. I'll note also that the real complaint, as I
[Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The premises: 1. I just had a short chat with [[Erik Orsenna]], a member of the [[Académie française]] who loves to learn and pass along knowledge. He's also interested in the adventure of knowledge and in the democratic processes and appreciate being able to tap into the knowledge of the five french Académies he has access to. I asked him if he was aware of Wikipedia and of its participative nature. He did. I asked him why the Academicians didn't participate more and share their knowledge on it. He said that they have no time, that they're busy writing their books. 2. In parallel, I had several conversations with university Professors showing their reticence, distrust or hostility about the free encyclopedia. They discredit the articles when speaking to their students. 3. High level physicists also stay away from it. (for example most of the theoretical information about [[quasars]] comes from the 1960's. Current information on the net is frequently only available through pay-to-read sites.) The interpretation: It seems that the traditional way of handling knowledge is treating it as a good, that is, a resource with a monetary value and ownership. One invests money, time and efforts to obtain it. People who made a career out of it want to recover their costs and make benefits out of it. Some like the prestige of their exclusive knowledge or the authority it confers. The consequences: A. Some feel threatened by the wikipedia model. They don't want it to succeed. They perceive it would question their role, their power and their way of earning money. B. An expert who has synthesized after 40 years of dedicated studies most of the knowledge of his specific domain that is known to humanity will transmit it to a few persons only each year: a few dozens of students, a few dozens of other experts, and a few thousands of passionate readers who buy the vulgarization book. Thus, knowledge is controlled, reserved, limited, slowed down. It will take decades or centuries before the best of what we know reach everybody. The consequences if it were to change: With wikipedia, any expert could reach and teach millions of persons. In ten or twenty years, every literate person with internet access could use an interdisciplinary, edge-cutting database of knowledge for their diary reasoning. The knowledge and understanding of mankind could make giant leaps. Concluding: I think it is important to think how many of the intellectual profession don't collaborate and why. We should search if mechanisms involving the wikipedia and that would benefit their research are possible. We should even think economical models about knowledge that allow the profession to change, in the same way that it is happening with the free software, copyleft, Creative Commons and other alternative models. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMACAaAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L47gH/ArEE/5fhrr47KwQ4FtkuBFh jQyjpM3QUIA5ewEsUBKTCH9GmfWGjsZFCai6At+0FZe8nvxBNZ4PU2/citTzZ1Yi g6e1K3+GN8hnIjPcoW5yg2Eo/znuUyJNoE7rJ0zZLHcs5QNBZbosua0XDdhQ98ji 6Hi9MJkbpIcg8J+Ut/lYZCBGSvD0s64s9Rsi51cVgMF3pitkP1j0h017qnA71d8g 6U7OQf8dtsstDaT0UsrdS9l4b1TrNWW2SUatGBruSemrdUScnpojbsqM9yvP9NSe q7zhKf5xPYvdvaa6DxfkKaijjslkxj9sg8efhjsqRyt13alFBF7YSR9aHO8GEz0= =/yTW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 28/05/2010 22:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: 3. High level physicists also stay away from it. (for example most of the theoretical information about [[quasars]] comes from the 1960's. Current information on the net is frequently only available through pay-to-read sites.) Well, I am a university professor in physics and a Wikipedia administrator. There's a misunderstanding. Not surprising because I'm terrible with words. I'm glad you're here and I'm sure there are a lot like you. I'm expressing my surprise that there are so many reticences among the intellectual professions, at least in France and Argentina where I made my little personal investigation. I would naively expect a massive participation from them, on the supposition that they share a vocation for sharing knowledge and a passion to learn from others. And indeed some do. I have the impression, however, that they're a minority. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If it needs to be precised, I try to never communicate to impose personal convictions but to ask questions and provoke thoughts in the hope of deeper questions. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMAE6/AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LszIIAJJ8upZ219OBGr3w6wbpp6CT 1SnTMVszCB7rEp0961AwM1oDgiNed/QTNtk5+nH8rtT4FXlMvGDA6Abx8CttQYlS ygDeRiHm2r6O0CsHWR6QrS+gKD3G4JkrdUUrSgFE0ZNyflpwUW0KB9Zhl/2gOXjY DrcCiTAdA8qAX/f4OabDJi9TE8NAR0yzuti196Z0k9rAQmbEAvX/UDjxJ7Cvr3Nu 8IVJ0LxG84tLwPDQ3iWE5E2N9S51uJiUrEK0qiKhp5KgD7T89ABKcz/JYpV5YKfV HJxe9QvPDIYbB5dcr66nYrfAbIq95fnMcITkJOuLEtfqeYffQFXZBTZYR4CA9Eg= =u1X4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Some thoughts, not aiming at anybody in particular. The pressure from Fox News, the childish founders' jealousies, the void FBI threats, the patriarch complex of Mr. Wales, if they're real, should be of no inflated importance. Our personal tastes about what images we like and which we don't should be of little weigh compared to what is at stake. Wikipedia and its sister projects are making history. They're forging a century-lasting [[Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity]]. For the first time in its existence, humanity has a tool to break free from ignorance and manipulation. These projects are giving freedom of choice for every human. (but ok, it may take centuries) We should remember the big picture from time to time. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL9j/vAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LX1YH/2ba5+ka5DfeuvXvweBoS4Cd h8Kk59GmEAAbguXOTCg6kiCbgH6nO5r62WAcBo7PnInmbOo0Zi75SAmdsUMPdb6e 6dnFzQxO4jb1GHmVY7xuAaDYl96bo0DIlFmmyQdFhSn04QTNGXbvDjaMkF5oB2xV i0uyTSP5MiNs8NbqWqgItcUqq+GZNrKyhJeDzP9MAJFojj7mDau0CxIjpkrVxeh9 g2uvTxS/p1PSSLFL4l+7qSJQtX3ZCNMwqCHdw7OiUXPYfgXwGckW4nimdhjHuwtC v+QF1kTLvRZVTA/ZOm2CdEysx0iif4/tOl8neKC9ePz1W4OCAYEPLAbkInE1GZE= =S6Zj -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thank you for this deep analysis. While claiming that we should not compromise any of the principles, you didn't address directly the possibility that we won't reach everybody if we don't compromise. Reaching every human is a (currently and apparently) conflicting principle with free uncensored information. What is your vision about that? Wait for better times? Do you think that with time, the inherent virtues of our model will end convincing the reluctant or opposed people of today? On 12/05/2010 17:50, David Goodman wrote: Even more than what Ray says: if we do not offer comprehensive free uncensored but reliable information, who will? Other sites may feel they have to censor; other uncensored sites may and mostly do have little standards of reliability. Some uncensored reliable sites are likely to require some form of payment, either directly or through advertising or government support. If there is a audience for compromised sources of information, there are many organizations eager to provide it. Other free uncensored reliable projects can be very important in their sphere, but we have an almost universal range. We're at present unique, which we owe to the historical fact of having been able to attract a large community, committed to free access in every sense, operating in a manner which requires no financial support beyond what can be obtained from voluntary contributions, and tied to no groups with pre-existing agendas--except the general agenda of free information. That we alone have been able to get there is initially the courage and vision of the founders, their correct guess that the conventional wisdom that this would be unworkable was erroneous, the general world-wide attractiveness of the notion of free information, and, at this point , the Matthew effect, that we are of such size and importance that working here is likely to be more attractive and more effective than working elsewhere--and thus our continuing ability to attract very large numbers of volunteer workers of many cultural backgrounds. We have everything to lose by compromising any of the principles. To the extent we ever become commercial, or censored , or unreliable, we will be submerged in the mass of better funded information providers. On the contrary, they have an interest in supporting what we do, because we provide what they cannot and give the basis for specialized endeavors. If there is a wish for a similar but censored service, this can be best done by forking ours; if there is a wish to abandon NPOV or permit commercialism, by expanding on our basis. We do not discourage these things; our licensing is in fact tailored to permitting them--but we should stay distinct from them. We have provided a general purpose feed and suitable metadata, and what the rest of the world does is up to them--our goal is not to monopolize the provision of information. We need not provide specialized hooks--just continue our goal for improved quality and organization of the content and the metadata. That China has chosen to take parts of our model and develop independently in line with its government's policy, rather than forking us, is possible because of the size of the government effort and, like us, the very large potential number of interested and willing highly literate and well-educated participants. All we can do in response is continue our own model, and hope that at some point their social values will change to see the virtues of it. If some other countries do similarly, we will at least have contributed the idea of a workable very large scale intent encyclopedia with user input. All information is good, though free information is better. If those in the Anglo-american sphere wish to censor, they know at least they have a potent uncensored competitor that it practice will also be available, which cannot but induce therm to a more liberal policy than if we did not have our standards. I wish very much Citizendium had succeeded--the existence of intellectual coopetition is a good thing. Even as it is, I think they have been a strong force in causing us to improve our formerly inadequate standards of reliability--as well as demonstrating by their failure the need for a very large committed group to emulate what we have accomplished, and also demonstrating the unworkability of excessively rigid organization and an exclusively expert-bound approach to content. I'm glad Larry did what he did in founding it--had it achieved more ,so would we have also. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Milos Rancic wrote: On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Let
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 13/05/2010 13:01, Gregory Maxwell wrote: I don't know that reaching everybody was ever a stated goal. Being theoretically available to everybody is a different matter... Ah, that's the part that is not clear to me. If you talk about the intrinsic properties of the Big Project, I agree that the core must be free, uncensored resources. My concern, however, is about the interface with the real world, that is, the way this project containing information, ideas and knowledge (specifically set in the context of the 21st century, mostly english language, mostly western, mostly rich users) interacts with mankind. Allow me to explain: My current vision is that there are several main obstacles to a free interaction, for example: - - illiteracy - - no internet access - - cultural rejection - - political censorship With this context, I wonder if being theoretically available is enough, or if the Foundation and community should worry about solving or circumventing the pragmatical obstacles. I understand the debate of the last days as an example about what I call a political censorship, in a very generic meaning: an arsenal of cultural values and technological means that forbid some ideas to circulate, thus governing the minds into certain authorized or tolerated behaviours (and thoughts). I think most of mankind feel some kind of taboos are necessary to achieved a civilized society. This feeling leads to the need (and thus acceptation) of laws, which can be viewed as a legitimized form of censorship. Because of this generalized feeling towards laws, it is impossible to sum up all the knowledge of humanity without offending each of these cultural laws, and thus incommoding their believers. Abiding to the cultural laws of a community gives a sense of belonging, of identity, of security... It's a strong, common urge. Let's add to this fact that many of those laws are in the hands of tutors who use them as a tool to shape their protected ones. (It doesn't matter if I agree with their values or not, I'm focused on the mechanism.) The result is that you have deciding people between the foundation projects and their potential users, deciding people that have control of the flow of information. If they lose this control they lose power and their community (or child, for example) will lose faith in the official values and may start differing. From their perspective, it's the beginning of chaos. So, back to Wikipedia an Commons. Allowing such conflicts (free universal information versus locally controlled information) would antagonize the leaders and disturb the society order (which may be viewed as good or bad from our point of view, but is usually terrifying from theirs). The pragmatical approach seen in the debates is to compromise enough to avoid the conflicts and keep reaching the censored masses, minimizing the compromise of principles. The idealistic approach seems to only care about the internal community. For example: David (a real thought leader) Goodman wrote: If there is a wish for a similar but censored service, this can be best done by forking ours; But the wish to censor is not internal (except for parent maybe), thus a fork wouldn't be followed by users. It's not users who want the censorship system, it's detractors who don't want any out of their control, free access to information to begin with. My impressions from the last events is that people who believe in Wikipedia and Commons projects don't wish major changes to the censorship system that is satisfactorily self-managed by the users and editors. I think the people who feel strongly threatened by the lack of censorship on Wikipedia and Commons are whether from an opposing side or on a confused, testing phase. Because there is a war of influence, I wonder if we are robust enough to ignore the enemies we're creating by our very existence, given that they are influential. Fox News, Iran, China are just symptoms: what's happening here is that we're beginning to be a threat, imho, and that an escalation of hostility is to be expected the more we are successful and they become aware of us. Is it wise to ignore how the rest of the world reacts to the free access of information? Can the community thrives only on the shoulders of the people not offended by our current handling of information, or not? I don't know the answer, but I think we should be attentive and realistic enough to avoid a war, for example. That is not saying that we should change or compromise just to please. But if we choose to compromise, in this case allow some kind of censorship, forked or not, we need to know what's at stake and the dangers. Most of the libertarian communities that I know failed because they were too disturbing / annoying for the surrounding powers. There should be a constant acute perception of that. Maybe I've been too long in South America to have blind faith in our enemies, but a net with a few
Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Kat, I'm not used to the level of finesse of your thoughts and this time I chose to think aloud to help me. The result is this long mail that other may find useful. Maybe. Please let me know if they're not, or if I misunderstood you. As for the verbose mode, it is due to your inspiring words! Be warned: random thoughts ahead. Don't read if evolving, long chain of thoughts bother you. On 11/05/2010 01:43, Kat Walsh wrote: I absolutely sign on to the board statement[1]. Commons should not be a host for media that has very little informational or educational value; works that are primarily intended to shock, arouse, or offend generally fall under this category. So you think that we can judge the intention itself through this common sense that many pretend to be rare? You think that a qualitative, subjective, honest, consensual, fair, libertarian, dialogable judgment is possible? Well, I do too, though I'm not sure if general consensus can be easily achieved on this basis. We can detect persons that are trespassing their rights to act as they wish: when they're playing with our feelings and disturb us without respect, without waiting for our invitation. We should avoid that and I think any admin and user can police that. In fact a rule can easily be stated, published and understood, then applied, until it becomes a common netiquette. The admins are probably already acting this way, I suppose. But are you saying that works that are primarily intended to shock, arouse, or offend lose informational or educational value because we judge they have this bad intent or are you saying that because of this bad intent, informational or educational values are neglected? Should we judge by the encyclopedic value and/or by the negative emotions produced and/or intended? In the later case, I'm not sure that arousal is a negative emotion. I'm surprised that the common sense position protect sensitive persons (ie, children) has been several time exposed here and no one gave a voice to the common sense position sex is good. Are we ashamed to express it? Is it too delicate to say and should we talk with some implicit values, never to be mentioned? I think arousal is good, actually. (if chosen and wanted by the person). And well, we should inform about all positive emotions by allowing them to be felt, so that everybody can choose the kind of life he/she wants to experience. Sexual pleasure, free libido, acceptation of the body, free of guilt, they're important states of mind to be reached. I'm not saying that we should impose them, but we shouldn't censor them, so that everybody can realize itself in the ways of sex. Sorry for the prude ears here. I hope we're adult enough to talk freely about pornography (or more generally, what is obscene to someone because it is a forbidden thing that is pleasant to experiment). Yes, pornography is good. Pornography industry? Dubious, because there is too much prostitution and lack of respect. But there is a sane erotic art and culture. Sane because it respects humanity, not because it is legal or not, showing hair or not, 2cm of skin or 5, etc. I'm not inciting anyone to do anything illegal here, legal considerations must be considered, but they should not determine our principles which must come from ourselves. If we're going to judge intentions, then we'll recognize that what's transmitting positive emotions like joy or arousal is not necessarily bad or good. It depends on the presence of intentions and the effects channeled to private interests - generally dominating ones. (ie, you can idiotize a population with propaganda using positive emotions). If that's the point of an image, to manipulate emotionally, I have serious doubts about categorizing it as an unbiased, neutral, potential illustration. The problem is that finding intention where there's none is what humans do best. Judging the intention is a heavy, usually subjective responsibility to give to admins. Unless we find a very simple question to ask in order to judge the intention of a image, we won't reach unanimous consensus, which should be an ideal of the mission. We're far from this ideal, I guess a century behind, but it's good to know where to aim. Judging not by the intent, but the actual emotional impact (ie, empowering each user to be able to warn others, like a Stumbleupon system), may lead to manipulation too. I could expand. Back to the short term considerations: even a pornographic picture deserves at least a trial. They have rights, you know :) The model of discussing for deletion or undeletion seems to be an excellent model, though we need to refine our communication (not manipulation) techniques to reach greater consensus. One of the current, apparent problems was that Mr. Wales didn't respect this discursive-consensual approach. Now that this issue is past, or at least independent of the censorship issue, we should ask ourselves if this
Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/05/2010 12:44, Gregory Maxwell wrote: I would propose that the reason we are subject to such a _small_ amount of complaint about our content is that much of the world understands that what Wikipedia does is —in a sense— deeply subversive and not at all compatible with ideas which must be suppressed. This fact gets a lot of names, some call it a liberal bias though I don't think that is quite accurate. But there very much is a bias— a pro-flow-of-information bias. We don't always realize we have it, but I don't think we deny it when we do. And there is a general consensus here about those libertarian views? I'm impressed. Sorry to repetitively check the ethical temperature of the community, but I come from social horizons where it's not only not natural, but generates hatred. I never could talk about libertarian ideas outside of one or two family members and two or three friends. Here, it seems the norm, and I simply can't believe it. As I said before, Wikipedia acted like a magnet on me. I'm wondering if it's uniting all the (internet connected) libertarian of the world. In this case I'm surprised that it didn't receive more serious attacks from the establishment. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6ajnAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LxQEIAOkmwi+7o3PyBbxOXDHrfTyT 5+OemY+gw4AEejtDq/ZV6jI3ngD/APehLY/slGWsiwxbOlhH3YPy1ELPdwOQdX75 YKyjprccvuLPgY+vkUTD4osn12hZWH0g83kPRjjvx4CeBiGL1kvxKDpU1qXDyhNX sboxxSwXqMI9gVH787Wd03TWP7EXxdwPkt7TEc6M1oMXug4RhpUB9jdUr1ikO5Ni 09ws/S0zIHiVCd88BTfYxaG0JJYbt/vmSG0232Sz5w+CjXtVfigch6KHYVKrYxAV XdXTPwvd0D63tXNBJ/lsZ9AjGk28Ktdyum9T7RROFXlQckBk3Fi7m9o57F0Fomk= =IP4R -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I put my impressions of the moment on this discussion page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship#Some_reflexions_following_the_censorship_polemic_of_May_2010 On 09/05/2010 20:04, Sue Gardner wrote: Yeah, Pryzkuta, I know there are lots of debates happening everywhere; that's a good thing --- obviously talking about all this stuff is good, and people should use whatever mechanisms work for them. All the discussions are good, and everybody is bringing useful stuff to the table. Re Jimmy, my understanding is that he has voluntarily relinquished the ability to act globally and unlilaterally, in an attempt to bring closure to that thread of discussion, because he thinks it's a distraction from the main conversation. Which is, the projects contain, and have contained, material which many people (different groups, for different reasons) find objectionable. The main question at hand is: what, if anything, should be done about the inclusion in the projects of potentially objectionable material. Should we provide warnings about potentially objectionable material, should we make it easy for people to have a safe view if they want it, should we make a safe view a default view, and so forth. My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the scope of Jimmy's authority question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about what's happened over the past week, and it will take time for them to be less angry. But I think Jimmy's goal --which I support-- is to enable people to now move on to have the more important conversation, about how to resolve the question of objectionable material. To recap: it's a big conversation, and it's happening in lots of places. That may need to happen for a while. I would like to see us move into a synthesis phase, where we start talking in a focused way, in a few places, about what we should do to resolve the question of objectionable material. I think the thread by Derk-Jan is a step towards that. But it may be that we're not ready to move into a synthesis phase yet: people may still need to vent and brainstorm and so forth, for a while. Thanks, Sue -Original Message- From: Przykuta przyk...@o2.pl Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 00:16:02 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the d iscussion ishappening 1) There has been a very active strand about Jimmy#039;s actions over the past week and his scope of authority, which I think is now resolving. That#039;s mostly happened here and on meta. Sue - everywhere - mailing lists, IRC channels, village pumps... We need to talk as Wikimedia Community. There is no authority without communication - face to face(s); keyboard to keyboard. The biggest fire (RfC flame) is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag 400 votes - 400 users !--- (and probably puppets :p) --- Maybe the best way will be to start special IRC debate - about past, present and future. (and again, and again, and again - yeah) Yes... We have bigger problems, but... maybe not. This is real trouble. przykuta ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6DLoAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LPyEIANZz0qs0ETveeNNZl+cLAWYo q6Ivu/2Y49VpfzRrgCm1RtUMiYPxvFtoXPv2PQpOmf4CiU6opm/fFZ06cEp30ete Jey5525ALYyZidrnFaCnzzSl2Mai4zjKsLCcT3FPveAYdPk0JSf5Y4gIiWxU9a3i WTbOnKByved0AN5tHlxFrorGx2cva/atUQX+RDGWfD6YWP4gbiyz4U2HyXaaMMOK GXL3kA3wE/mUXg33hRmqJBVbIrMzQB6vrbkTbAijm2FiLW6j7iGC1iOFUDNMdVdA hteOXYsIZs/UvtGLb8E0xZb+5UmjUtuwP+yMGSBNSy5TzuRVW7obu6AsFOhqSAA= =eOeC -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/05/2010 22:10, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Aphaia aph...@gmail.com wrote: Is there any option to tell them commons has its own mailing list instead of adding it to the foundation-l? I think Austin touched upon this as well, but, yes, I would remind everyone that discussions are occurring now on Meta, Commons and the English Wikipedia, as well as their respective mailing lists. Aspects of this discussion specific to certain projects are probably better suited to those projects. Could you link to these discussions? It would be interesting to learn their views and ideas. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6EAHAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LCJoH/iU8D32zwJyRPuSgFLuXKLD0 zsvaTSc8zoMnVlGat4MokRolBic/fSdCFwTg9l3ht1WRdwZJnJbUTK3zVGHDn3m4 xmlDaDM36sXo0fCf3zBw38ShOgVSFYIzVQDAciDsGfKSDqmVMiLtDMkfcryAbkFY GdFYT/tL9aAjXYwVUWJbsyenAe3FLRh1flu1WfphMCtQIOhqEGkJk3vFOkn8MvV8 rrUX7qDzg8KE7BGg9KhkJVf9rS3O/YxBOiF2CP3gam8qHAOJLuLn2Hdk0gT3aoFT oEJdtXzf/bm2Ke5VHU1ObqPmuZUVAa2+2CzoHaxwc5XSerNwee24tm1OdLJUtlw= =9Lkn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons:Sexual content
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/05/2010 05:51, Andre Engels wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:23:28AM +0200, Andre Engels wrote: Being educational should be just another word for being in scope, and in scope are, in my opinion, in the first place those files that are usable for the projects. That is the first thing that we should be judging things by. I've already emphasized that a bit already on the page, but more from the WARNING angle. That only says that pictures that are _used_ should not be deleted indiscriminately. Used and usable are not the same. Could you edit or comment on the page in a way that reflects what you just stated? :-) Hardly. The page as it is now seems to go from the point of view that we should not host any pornography, then restricts itself by trying to get a narrow definition of 'pornography'. For me, whether or not something is pornographic is at best a secondary issue. Then would the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Censorship page be more appropriate? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6Eo5AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LUW8IAIRl3uSV0wHZ3GP7hUCrWwuR CEeJnjKuVKW+mIlXfvViUuZIAKiCkNxAgPzxajxf4ng0rn89O/Kz/yZQVlRh1lQe IaVJUr3C0QSlvp6+Eo8yhwSCMxgV4XBHlkB4w2BeaIIvebFVxJMaASyP0ujy9CrF E6GPEgODy/HLVlEXTV+1qjtp3jgTmwJSHHkUB0PnRhO+Lsm8NzUl26aq/9zouxIw grSmmdNyXkTb+QkopMSPh8p27K5rcq9NpiLMIAu9pMguaM0E/XMiCADobajLJ/vv ex4E3RpUayNrP163tjAzJSHOPnKn9aKPjy9rJ70StAS3n9S3si9P9c1pTdQFISE= =R83f -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/05/2010 07:56, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote: 2010/5/10 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org: J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov hett schreven: I have a problem with basing it on IP addresses. As a non Muslim in a Muslim country, why should Wikimedia decide that *I* cannot see Muhammad pictures but that it is perfectly OK to show it to a Muslim in Germany / France wherever. I think the world has moved on a bit from the one country, one religion / set of values / morals. You are of course right. But what is the alternative? The only alternative is not basing it on location so everybody sees the same. That's like one world, one set of values. The alternative is to not censor, in any circumstance, to any kind of audience whatsoever. I must confess I find this particular alternative brilliant. It is imperfect, as any other form of freedom of thought and expression. But other options are more imperfect, not less, in my opinion. I think some projects (like the English Wikipedia) already reached consensus on this issue. I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this person wants a protecting tool, what is your answer? You give me the impression that you're saying: ignore him, let's let him be offended. In this case even if you're think you're right theoretically, you're alienating part of humanity from the big project that is reaching them all. Creating negligently a strong feeling of rejection with a few month of obliviousness to their culture can take dozen of years to repair. I don't think the topic should be solved so lighly and bluntly. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6Ez7AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LKkQH/0c0uBfRQ6NJsSAiJQzCHSGt Irl+uUg2xGhK9YfkeKFVpIcpSPzOTZA2oNZXjSr8lTS65U/jTui1f2T+zJsIUlTt 4TA87eRWY8lWub9zOdVmmlW3tOsrG12XB70GDrQOYqkVraYUX1owlRXS/nxWl877 rU3Uq+Y7LWhcILC8cFvQQ9LIsWKAfTrDQbsPITDAmWVV7LeDcllMShn6l9cMbAs9 TazNTb/CJwi0j/vdnjy4JYJ0sGPrGoLKfQ3QZPFSZ/EoyfcUnx6GwjgPOMPol5ZO hEK+QzY3lbUqbtcDtEMX3/V1RR/gKCnHocP9bOiFNWxdruJq1cFAcSCTwqgPY1Q= =1xe5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Filtering ourselves is pointless
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Is anyone here really concerned by Fox News actions? From the beginning it seemed to me that what they were barking about were of no impact: they would confirm the WMF's opponents in their opinions and obtain an indifferent or amused shrug from the rest of the world. Am I wrong? Should we really panic as the Board and Mr. Wales did? (ok, not panic, but feel the gravity and urgency of the situation?) On 10/05/2010 18:36, David Gerard wrote: On 10 May 2010 22:32, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion that Fox News was correct? I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my assessment, would draw upon encountering Jimbo's remarks first-hand, with or without reading Fox's subsequent reports on the matter. Did you draw that conclusion? Your equivocation on this point is wearisome. Jimbo's actions were ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL6H4GAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LDYIIAJGqKCI2Y5HREzCzqfey5NEw ykTST9dXNmwWVnTMp9V0OkJ4AG5P2Zp+FwYbqVqyRFQToAlMHq7FBbFpQ8sWkzHv HwPxH/s31IGvpA7YsVv/k8+hOBjUoFqph0entHZ5em/04o3cj3ee2yQU/ufn4COZ 6LXJ7DFE3uyfsI2zspMHg3HsVpytLSYg+kCBwRyeZXgJLssS3e8ZU2huqWHfH9oE PfOmqIPbOdovIvU7RAVAfxzY7J/lj9GUNPXhjUXWJ0R2d1sNJ0/dJSa9wnJt8euT MnEs/aiNm3ugd8PRQoUnRP6vr7nSozpU3AXMqOPP5J6saTBWOhWV4CqoIKRbQmw= =l87b -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/05/2010 02:12, Pedro Sanchez wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: I'm surprised it is apparently needed to be said, but I'm here too because I have faith in universal values. In fact I've been attracted like a magnet since the day, one year and five months ago, that I wondered: In this world rushing into its own demise, who is struggling to better the human condition and protect our Earth? I can certainly say you've been around /only/ a year and half, as you seem to believe all this is about wikipedia. It's about commons and wikimedia in general. (Here, and I've /only/ been around 5 years, but that's irrelevant) No, no, I use wikipedia as a metonymy, because I don't know the word for the idea behind all the WMF projects. Replace wikipedia by universal access to knowledge if you wish. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5oNdAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LgwQH/Reu+1Rh8wvp2UKHPPHjohNP czVEha3G53YzbIuGHcSC1zgc7qNsKzQ07iOlBlWCv1kJJ4MpHoY0Au5widLXGFB3 QFW+nhnKpV1+UPdBqbOnVZKFW2kmovo5s7FHNyBxeTCaUhQFR49o98hilgg/zmgB 0p6lYLg5If6jsS1+e8YLg/UxvNZ4WlS/JKi+o3uq0H4RzDYVnbJoLSoNMdHzSHLI Zk2rc5WRcsk5DQcZtQCl/8r/QX0CDVpskSgTbwEkbK2wX6GOqYulI34x+nv07Kvk Cj/N+qGDrMhp6/yLtHlu4+p8wH5RNp830aUxWbSgmQq+RfF1fqn78JAwpDvTmw4= =b/Ee -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/05/2010 05:46, Jimmy Wales wrote: On 5/8/10 10:02 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: The deletions themselves aren't the problem; the manner in which they were carried out is. As a lawyer you should understand that the due process is important. I understand that and apologize for it. There was a crisis situation and I took action which ended up averting the crisis. In the process I stepped on some toes [...] I'm sorry to step in opposition since we never had the opportunity to met before, Mr. Wales, and I do respect you. It's with great sadness that I must disagree with your systematic and apparently deliberated minimisation or ignorance of the grief you've done. I wouldn't call my freedom of self-determination my toes. It's the core of my being. I feel I have the right to decide for myself about censorship issues. I feel that my voice should count as one vote, no more no less. I feel that my intelligence deserves access to the knowledge you used to declare a crisis. I don't feel inferior. I am not. Respect should be reciprocal, and I don't feel this is the case. [...] for that I am sorry. I won't do it again. The most important questions now have to do with policy on commons. The most important questions for you are not the most important questions for the community, it seems. The most important question for ANY person is to be free to decide (and alive). If you negate that then you can't be sorry. We want a real talk about that, not a dodge. You owe us some listening. By promising that you won't do it again you don't understand (or probably don't want to) that the problem is not adressed. The majority of the community, I think, don't want the WMF projects to be at the mercy of just one person's tastes, no matter what he or she promises. This is too big and important to be that vulnerable. Too many users depend on these universal knowledge projects. Too many years of work from thousands of editors were put. You cannot subject the governance of the universal knowledge to you (or an small elite), because nobody can hold enough open-mindedness to represent all the humanity. You contributed the most important milestone for the liberation of mankind. Don't become a needless tyrant. Sorry for my arrogance. I know most people will judge my ideas on the basis that I am nobody and no recognized trajectory, while your contributions are unquestionable. So be it, I'll take the chance. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5pE3AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6Lv8wH/2z2Z+K1AgEXwlJdCCkuuQ63 OOyeeYR21Hc/2tirjusEmkRpQ8L3NIkrd6e+GSgAFvx3sYwz0ZIwQjXPuU+hnRPt 8H9i5Qh6z3VGLxJ9Uk6FPnk17No79lh2sfcd94/5e3o+HJtKxwLhgh4waR1R3DLT JX1YrRty9WaKzyZn+C770PHHN5UGdYeuifgHSzw5ztvZJfM8+fSAqJGm496PD6+s SnRKiZwQgUh+PU70UVQNpbK/tn4jE2zDxMNAWUtUMr5daz/FZMbGfDQ1y4c6/i6Q Y1AKz71uIMhMEebKUAZ+eRYK4xYyUYhcMhXcHNhTltU6OnuLPME5E5wS3FbfwFs= =hQrz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Imagine a world where every single media and government on the planet is given free censorship on the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're king of. I agree with Mike Godwin that this crisis is an constructive opportunity, not just a destructive event about fears (of FBI, of Fox News, of dictatorship), angers and disappointments. But an opportunity for what? - - to constructively discuss the censorship problem. - - to constructively discuss the vulnerability of the WMF - - to constructively discuss the Commons policy Let's start to pinpoint and synthesize the few big problems and link to a wikipage to BUILD discussion and answer. 200 mails a day is not the way, in my opinion, besides the fact that this current discussion is not (and should not be) restricted to this mailing list. Do we already have appropriate wikipage (or another collaborative structure) to discuss these points? On 08/05/2010 12:48, Mike Godwin wrote: I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf of the Foundation but instead as a longtime participant in online communities who has worked extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my perspective on a couple of themes that I've seen made in threads here. The first is the claim that Jimmy's actions represent a collapse in the face of a threat by Fox News (and that this threat was somehow small or insignificant). The second is the idea that the proper focus of the current discussion ought to be focused on Jimmy (and anger against Jimmy's taking action, or against particular aspects of the actions he took) to the effective exclusion of discussion of whether Wikimedia Commons policy should be revisited, refined, or better implemented. First, my belief as a former journalist is that Fox News is not a responsible news organization. This means that they get too many stories wrong in the first place (as when they uncritically echo Larry Sanger's uninformed and self-interested assertions), and it also means that when their mistakes are brought to their attention, they may redouble their aggressive attacks in the hope of somehow vindicating their original story. This I believe is what Fox News (or at least its reporter and her editors) were trying to do. If the media culture in the United States were such that Fox News had no influence outside itself, we could probably just ignore it. But the reality is that the virulent culture of Fox News does manage to infect other media coverage in ways that are destructive to good people and to good projects. I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than with the story Jimmy in effect created for them. Jimmy's decision to intervene changed the narrative they were attempting to create. So even if you disagree with some or all of the particulars of Jimmy's actions, you may still be able to see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a whole, created breathing space for discussion of an issue on Commons that even many of Jimmy's critics believe is a real issue. The question then becomes whether we're doing to discuss the issues of Commons policy or discuss whether Jimmy's actions themselves signify a problem that needs to be fixed. You may say we can discuss both, and technically you'd be right, but the reality of human discourse is that if you spend your time venting at Jimmy, you won't be discussing Commons policy, and you'll be diverting attention from Commons policy. My personal opinion is that this would be the waste of an opportunity. I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers will be controversial. (If they were uncontroversial, nobody would need them, since consensus processes would fix all problems quickly and effectively.) But rather than focus on whether your disagreement with the particulars of what Jimmy did means that Jimmy's powers should be removed, you should choose instead, I believe, to use this abrupt intervention as an opportunity to discuss whether Commons policy and its implementation can be improved in a way that brings it more into line with the Wikimedia projects' mission. Once this discussion happens, it would not surprise me if the result turned out to be that some of the material deleted by Jimmy will be restored by the community -- probably with Jimmy's approval in many cases. To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate about policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified. (Like many of you, I would probably disagree with some of his particular decisions, but I recognize that I'd be critical of anyone's particular decisions.) It is not the
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote: (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issue too long and failed to drive closure and implement. (3) There are complex issues around _some_ of the content that is in a gray area and those complexities distracted us from dealing with the clearer cut cases. In order to help us understand better the situation, can you refer concrete examples of 1 and a link to the discussion mentioned in 2? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5fvwAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LJ5IIANamqcGptj9/BxDl5DQvniDA uW4K40yLUpwWtV+sdiBDGNAfzfsIUROMvUG3nEDDaacx5EGAUl1BNBo/1g0zqGgv IP0NhTtEP6OrV1gDXGtWXxHZi6WNOZ4GQq2qnHYg3M1t9deLSo3wXkM6DK6G+T6A opu85TE3xD8Vu1cka/6DklCWMsKtWWfBNteAXp/ZwUfZfRdvKiDFN8tzXaiNSXcA XqT2JmuLuzPijADxXeSV4kfk1ugzMjra10v9X9BdqZWVp2abRQSepz/ZZKkA3gnY tT3BhfNXOvkRzgSZyreWBUsTpRn6MHm6EmJJaYLECXxn5v+eJlvSxTx7/aX3FuI= =Jap3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/2010 22:20, Casey Brown wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote: The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly. The infrastructure would be technically simple. I definitely agree that this would be the best solution. I agree too. Simple and respectful. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5jK5AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LNQAH/0p1G+kwOdSt/OOYelMNXwwE Z0/VWKbrHvDrENE156GxsCPRZpsDJyuQdQ92Lx+IQj+nE9uowaT1c+s7J8riLI3N oxJ8QHHsq9bovxI6f2uBbEFwdWlo9iKyfn7Av7hKzBGzPtFRuNKWKQ6yNbd4ivXN qblzvpUsqrQWMsEnNcsk8DLV8rlmbu5JWOVBkccn31svi2/i2Ij38cg0fqfv3aum KR5hbngERbb64Z9LQBKbsaVowB9f5oqcU8XW13y/L8BkQNSQa8SW/tS0jb0qz8PY IkXQOg0sI3wLlFsyi26dYyztHxZWJSpK8cfHoxw+wN03TGOXCsQIlFG/zEO0FW8= =WPEE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board members positions toward Jimmy's last action
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/05/2010 00:05, Milos Rancic wrote: There are some political reasons of why I am here. And they are about our values: all human knowledge... not censored... consensus culture... building encyclopedia etc., not surrealistic comedy... [..] Those values are *before* finances. We are here because of them, not because of money or strategy. Money and strategy are here because of our values. I'm surprised it is apparently needed to be said, but I'm here too because I have faith in universal values. In fact I've been attracted like a magnet since the day, one year and five months ago, that I wondered: In this world rushing into its own demise, who is struggling to better the human condition and protect our Earth? I think the whole active community are here because they believe that wikipedia is a fantastic project leading to a better world. With time, more and more people will believe it. This, my friends, is an incredible potential. This is the first time in mankind history that so much freedom for sharing knowledge is available for so many humans. We have a duty because we are the first. So let's not forget the long term goals and what is really at stake. It is good to be concerned by survival but survival cannot be the first priority, otherwise you'll lose ALL your values. It is true that the current crisis must be addressed but at the same time we must remember that it's just a moment in our long way to go. What's really important in this discussion is how to ensure that wikipedia will survive WITH ITS GOALS INTACT. The answer is yours, but I think that everyone should at least once ask himself about our current dilemmas (censorship, external pressure, Mr. Wales' power, etc.): Is it threatening our goal? (Why and how?) Is it threatening our survival? (Why and how?) Mutual understanding and solutions can be built from this mental frame. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5jvCAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6Lp/wH/jpt6HoNHi12rBZwk1UhC2BM JS6dOI8cRwiWJ2hPv6y4yTRex4ql6RyXTiXp74xeo22S+XCn7rwX8E+3RC7qoUnA mvggu9z9qSlL2ENVgLP3a1RSb8xKVrqSWJm8GvyBEMG8u6oAVlINZzjwnKK2mbUv iwUXU1tF02W9N3SjfaeTRVYxOLszsmKhXH7wrwho5ZTzTr81PIvj7qsCDUQopDwQ eRSJVo47Iu0YVrlBSXqZv7Nx12D6S8OSy/YdUQIkJJOqd3uKzQpTIa4Q6FL92Uhu 8+hEbFUzzzVA6GNqt7gmjtzbz8DUq+6JImfmIusHOcNzRzOQTu/pn+tPTPHbo/M= =eANa -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] MMORPG and Wikimedia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thank you for this analysis, Milos. I think you should definitely take the time to explain yourself more often since 1/ your bold statements are not unanimously intuitive 2/ we need to share visions, skills and knowledge to understand what we're talking about when we talk about wikimedia and the world. On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote: I can tell you of my experience with people from Kosovo who are not native english speakers, many of have a hard time reading anything longer than 140 characters. The dont like to read and books are very expensive, and the written language is very different than the spoken one. *** warning: long reasoning *** I was talking yesterday with a french woman who went for two years to help peasants of the Choco in Colombia. They are of oral traditions. Some are descendant of white colons. Some are Amerindians. Some are of African roots. No villager can read, only some bachelors from the cities. Internet doesn't reach the agricultural communities in this jungle where you only travel by boat. The only way my friend found to inform them and communicate was by creating role-playing scenarii with local, more educated inhabitants from the city; then go with them to the villagers in the jungle and communicate through the role-playing games. This understanding of the situation and this roleplay idea has a potential. Is it urgent? Is it immediately feasible? Does it concern the WMF? I don't know. But I think it is linked with the bigger problem of outreaching people, which is one of the core problems of the WMF (and mankind). What I know is that as long as we are alphabetized, educated, computerized, living in the comfort of occidental life, we're some kind of rich, literate elite (this not an insult nor an arrogance); we need to establish bridges with the 5 billions people who work with different minds and conditions, without imposing our culture or forcing our values into them. One of the first fundamental questions to think about the supreme goal of the WMF is: do every human WANT to access mankind knowledge? In my opinion, it is too late to preserve most ethnic cultures from say, capitalism or western culture. Admittedly, I have very limited knowledge, even if I constantly try to learn about this problem, so I know that I may be wrong. However, I have lived and traveled in South America long enough to see the crushing of traditions and culture by one dominant, predatory culture. Since it is too late for them, since their virginity is only a memory, I can accept the goal of reaching every human, even if they didn't ask for it, to give them a way to know what they want to know about the world they're being anyway sucked into. Because if I had to ask just one question to another being it would be is it really what you want?, because of that I think bringing knowledge to analphabets, poors and minorities is justified, it gives them the choice. For this particular targeted public, my limited mind concludes that the WMF needs humanitarian, pragmatic volunteers who want and know how to deal with real, non-occidental people. I don't think it would cost that much to ally with people already accomplishing ethnological or humanitarian missions: WMF would just have to provide the internet devices and software to facilitate an access to knowledge during interaction with ethnies. Etc. (A lot more could be discussed about this idea. I feel that coherent projects can be developed and built from this seed, and I know some potential partners, but this is just a coincidence of my eclectic knowledge. I'm personally more interested in black holes, so don't take my mail as proselytism for a personal agenda). Please forgive the time I'm stealing from you with my considerations. I'm not a natural english speaker and an additional effort from your part may be required in order to understand me. I think we need to solve diary problems AND discuss long term goals, in this very mailing list: in my opinion, both poles of reflection/action should go hand in hand so that when the implementation reaches the goal, it IS what we wanted. If I'm not in the right list for this kind of talk please redirect me. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5KMcAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LN5gIAKkLtgL5/RgfTe14nSseJvxB dHAIhllFQ757yXBctwgKVCYyKmZ8/kettk2q20GmCqFGmE8tgUcWAb8wJTto4yMv gra9tZvB2CscQw1LHVoNFo5kXd2h+w6TCqkrjlCDSeU18aOM7Vuh0FYYldTZseNN lGdycrkTBhVQBpyNgeJNSFQTq28ilK1ZanFbm6LGCmIosnoqVeCzswu2Dl32K1E6 YuduLqFcCO/JVeCLpnYGbV4H/Ra3zZQQHhU6pHJa0eT/GcOk6nGbTyM1SjK9q1V8 MUMurtjwKOECQ73J9Emyo4LyOGenDZJ2Z3SXrNP/66+oemoO9xwDZUchW1OFpzw= =PRqK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This, my friends, beyond the porn debate, is an important lesson about the vulnerability of wikipedia. You just have to threaten or convince Mr. Wales to control or shutdown the entire project. The whole community is powerless. When this crisis is over, we should think about giving a stronger autonomy to wikipedia. A project of this magnitude can no longer rest on the shoulder of one man, depending on his good faith. Wikipedia is making enemies (today: the prudes). One day they'll force Mr. Wales to denature the project. Is it today? I don't know. But don't be fooled about the appearances: the real crisis is not about porn, but about who has control on the project and who has control on these critical persons. If this is an emergency situation requiring a justified, immediate, unilateral, king-like massive action, I regret Mr. Wales didn't take the time to explain the emergency to us. By rush-imposing his views and decisions on people who are not out of the debate yet, he is browbeating their inner self, ignoring their beliefs and opinions, discarding the value of the Other. This lack of respect and of equality of vote should be extremely well argumented and the reasons transparently communicated. Otherwise, trust, faith and adhesion to the WMF values dissolve. I don't think we should let this happen. Mr. Wales, I hope you enter reason and dialogue realms again. We're not idiots who can't understand strategy. And by the way, if you pretend to calm puritan donors in a first time, then try to reconquer the lost ground later, you just surrendered the whole project to them by showing that you will cede before their threat. Maybe it is time to adopt a bold secularism (morally neutral, but still respectful of humans)? Anyway, will I, for one, accept the situation if you don't explain? I would oppose any person pretending to dictate non-consensually how to handle the human knowledge: it is part of the Humanity Heritage. But you're the founder and I'm powerless. Am I? I think many of us are having these very questions now. Is it good for the WMF that we're asking them? Is it the consequence of Wales' bold actions? Is the board voluntarily ignoring our legitimate feelings ? On 07/05/2010 17:19, Marcus Buck wrote: I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces that I found so far add up. * Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent] * Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them Wikimedia hosts child porn. [affirmed] * The FBI is rather unimpressed and does not take swift action. [apparent] * Larry Sanger informs media about us alleging Wikimedia of hosting porn. [unaffirmed] * The (conservative) TV station FOX reports about Wikimedia and contacts many important companies that have donated money for Wikimedia in the past whether they want to comment on the allegations. [affirmed] * The companies are contacting Wikimedia to ask what's going on. [unaffirmed] * The board worries about losses in donations and either sends Jimbo to Commons or Jimbo unilaterally decides to handle the case. [unaffirmed] * Without mentioning the previous developments Jimbo starts to delete all files that are porn (in his opinion, not sparing PD-old artworks etc.). Even engaging in edit-warring and ignoring input from the Commons community and ignoring community policies. [affirmed] * The Commons community condemns Jimbo's actions but has no power at all to stop the Founder-flagged berserk. [affirmed] Is this the story? Or are there any story arcs that I missed? Please correct me, wherever I am wrong. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5LdTAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LfGEIANYli6roFaZJOqXv5j/rvE3B D/9B7VLzyEn86tkWYOACz+k+Ngj9mORGKwdVSDKYhwNdx/ek3SuW87lwp/l2ORhA e16SsFbzPTTE0dDewvMfK2aEGjgPpK15AmV02Z3X12PeQJCO76fnjH9aKedBdvns BZnk3hv53OSIq194bizkTk82GYWClc7wvXX6jnvc0dtOWEetm8PdM3D9q4Gpuzuh Bgqa+mMx3WVOuUywRVGGQQMQ3L/xF4aisMHYgDP19rtnV9mNz4m4v8r9joGP7lP8 Bq2zEO8KeoTU5Yjb3sPLA66yz8vsJ0YCixhQIvP3Y+qGwETm84x3wr4Hbt7pOzQ= =3wP0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 A technical and sincerely genuine question about this list. Is somebody, some bot or some site synthesizing our emailed discussion, or is everything vanishing as soon as it is spoken? In this last case, shouldn't we keep an organized trace of the threads to allow discussion and synthesis? How will we reach fair consensus for complex and heated discussions otherwise? How do we plan on anger and fatigue to sort it out? On 07/05/2010 22:33, Anthony wrote: On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 5:18 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: Is there anyone who disagrees that we need to hold to the policies: 2. that no WMF project contain material that it can not legally contain. Legally contain according to what laws? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5MK9AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LqAcH/jFyF7WcgpympPaliNi5toHV J/BsH4WeA++e/5m/63b5jH+0mT410uPn+/i2HZaMLIjc8kztzOJTrhDvPeX3vl07 MAXG0Jp6SP7TnFLJx09QFzdaE/V/ItA0VU8qdIYe4TWq8z6EIfKNqpbgY3uTrGa0 HTG7CsoXk2MXYUgtXdT3ym0xAoPPL0FcLAMlHcqrPrRvgBY4kM8AM0rJknB313dF 3sD8dhgUsD7Gn2clCv+RJQQgGPOyRLc3sKAMc7Q48/ipr51WyneSNMGaHBrdE+3P F1Ut3c+J60bIibVGZek8PEj+Ar5YZuX5cOayBesXX5VjuFJrczOQWdq2rZseBUk= =L/5V -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] MMORPG and Wikimedia
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please stop any sarcasm. There are ideas worth the consideration, as with any newly available technological tool. We're aiming in this mailing list to shape the futur of the human knowledge through the foundation, right? So it is right to talk about the future, it's not an arrogance. Of course, any affirmation about the future must be considered an hypothesis, however convinced may seem his bearer, but also however unconvinced we are. Listen and think. Then answer so that our interlocutor listens and thinks too. Otherwise, all this mailing list is sheer struggle of prestige, power or noise. Now, one of the unsolved questions of the WMF is: how do we plan to communicate with analphabets? Even supposing we could bring them a (free) internet terminal, which is far from done, we would still face the barrier of language and the uselessness of writing. A first answer comes to my mind: with the oral or gestural tradition, using roleplay communicates an idea and interacts with the stranger. Because we cannot send people to each ethnical community and leave them as crucial interprets their whole life, this impossibility undermines seriously the main objective of the WMF.: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. If we cannot immediately alphabetize people, should we abandon them? Can't we try alternate ways than text? Is the computer completely useless or has it other uses? Does it offer real options to communicate with indians or amerindians tribes, without teaching them nor forcing them? 3d worlds could tell myths (our myths and theirs) way better than words or scriptures. An itinerant wiki worker could interface those people with his or her wiki-device (labtop, mobile, pda, portable videoconference device, etc.) and show them things they would understand. Without forcing, just proposing. The wiki worker would teach the people to use the device to keep interacting with the wikimedia net when he's gone. Would they care to know something? Would they care to ask? Would they care to say something? To answer something? If we keep with this scenario, Wikiask mission would be to collect the question of an ethny, translate it to everybody, collect the answers of people who want to answer, and send back the various answers to the ethny through understandable means: a 3d world, a theater piece played by comedians, a film, a story in your language, an artisanal object, art, whichever channel the ethny understands. An example of communicative art: Roleplay is a narrative technique that makes understand and live an information (a situation). There are other techniques, but bear with this one for a while and let's develop the idea. There are humanitarians people and passionate ethnologues who know the exact difficulties of communicating with non-occidenal communities and who may even know some solutions. They may need funds, material, technologies, internet, videos and 3d worlds to give (never sell!) free access to knowledge. Then again, maybe not. Discuss. Note: I'm not necessarily fan of the 3d idea, but as Robert Honing said, we should embrace new ideas and juggle with them. Voltaire have said: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Don't lose the gigantisc scope of the goal. The roleplay idea and the 3d idea are just hypothesis. The point is, what's at stake is so deep that we should investigate any promising idea.) My 2p. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL46fTAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LP0oIAIZCjl9hM5VgVUg4rMqRqciW bqbcaOV8bfNusSR5vzqjQIjWFABEBR971v6BBQd6rNlPmg52kI0oOb5hRBAG1FOd z/LW1WVlTK0kDYne/BCypx9LieOPT48XxfzISLfYOaaJX592sT8e8uxMd5Sv41hZ TwnFpAV5HqG4MY9d1XkKYQwPcVFYuO8zoj0O3uW6B2qiTuqIy7kvU2Rb/Tw9sqbp x1bTuIXVTthwBHOdvwUznFP1JvLp8JMccgmitoAu+BbwVA7F/tBw1RNH/jPZvAvD 960WoKecuHSDUn0aCtCaT7SjCeAuFDMFp3M6+COQHHeLcE29czGRmEOF+78O00E= =xKVW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Flagged Protection update for April 29
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Respect. If you can't, use private mail. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL25CxAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LC8MIANso1Zh8avMk3EAeYwtZ4Tse nFt7NBCbSa67bWJOW59/HwYw+za6bFVX8y0ce9grxc/ziht9iK9TSvfFxm8cTL6k W6iKnkelYaKB4lpw1D93FTnycG7cPntLK+TyEaEJJjVcnE6ia16xuNfi30krZ3aP DjPzu04nL+n+ixSZlVJsSjRLrKiXX0M88NzX16Lv79HGxJb7qTjWYy8hyHbVO3zu +CiHm3Q9qu1bd9m48kLP3C6WTA/oNq6hYYGTlTekHR8zBTOTZbN1nHSo5dWX7QO+ ZldByjooSpFr3ab9Ji9HBsAuHyZ3RFyor76D03HgpkQRl2Xhu4uE2KB3Uq/uwQE= =EsxD -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Comments on New Reports from November 2008 Survey Released
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello, I've been reading the survey. http://wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_NonContributors_15March2010-FINAL.pdf Suggestions: a) In my opinion, one of the things that make the learning curb steep to start editing is the fact that most of the essential concepts of Wikipedia are discussed through accronyms: ie, NPOV. If a bot could automatically add an explicitation, visible when hovering the mouse on the acronym, then the discussions pages would be self contained. b) Currently, the edition mode shows a different page with a different syntax than the article page which immediately rebukes the would-be editor. A WYSIWYG edition mode coupled with an AJAX technology would leave the editor in familiar grounds. c) A synthesis and a link to the main rules for writing an article should be present when in edition mode. Currently, if you want to know how to respect the conventions, you have to search for them by yourself. d) The notices that state one or other way that an article doesn't meet the wikipedia standard (ie, this article needs clean up) assume that the reader knows what the standard is. A link to an example of what is expected from the editor would clarify things: ie, an example of a before clean up article/ after clean up article. e) I think there are two main psychological steps required for editing and sharing knowledge. I - You notice that something is wrong or incomplete. That is, you know something that is not in the article. II - You find a way to pour your knowledge. You must be confident and comfortable with this way. Currently, step II can be achieved through two options: you edit the article or you start a discussion. This requires time, confidence, experience and will. Sometimes you just want to point out an obscure passage or an external link, without editing the article or leaving comments. I think those procedures should be assisted so that the editor can contribute with a single click or a link, leaving the rest of the task to others. f) I think that some potential editors are afraid of their first contribution. Once they're engaged and lost their a priori and fears, they should be more proactive. So I think small and easy participations should be made available to them. For example, right-clicking a word and correcting it's spelling with an integrated dictionary instead of going through the editing interface could be a determining step. g) Youth. There is no data on youth in the survey. I think they have specific patterns of thoughts and behaviours. Wikipedia should be adapted to them too. They're the future. Cheers -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLy2acAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LcgkIALEo8swfWcNoluB/bYTHyuJ1 WNB3g+NxLCvo5Uz9+zpwk5UJqyE9ja/B2fd9D3jcradgwGlX06wBfswvhoKBhq7T /jVlv2lLb3Yb9riRVK4PflSdIktzupvgpX6XERUjd28wOlz5SKJB5E/M/a8hAV6W nKVR8Hj+Dz15IBBHCLTlhJwQs9Ojp51jZMyqb6NnbGweo+0sTfavVgGr42rYGbE6 JQ90yAdExSGGGEf4fjfx9MW25L2r/ETbuyQBGmK6VotpRCaPB9+h5o7NF3U3xFZA mOI3aBf3iWkZW/DYEmBxpOJhy90tvOabalc1ESvH43g8hloYqssXPZ0WL4KcZDk= =lpmE -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
