Re: [Foundation-l] Volunteers Wanted: Funds Dissemination Process Advisory Group
Can you explain why we need this proposed process? The decision has been made to form a committee to make recommendations to the WMF board about funds dissemination. The only decision still to be made, as far as I can see, is who should be on the committee. What questions do you want to answer with this long, time consuming and expensive process? On 9 April 2012 20:08, Barry Newstead bnewst...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear all, Following up on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board resolution on Funds Dissemination[1], we are launching work on the design of the Funds Dissemination Committee[2] To help in the design and implementation work ahead, we are creating an Advisory Group which will begin work very soon. Information on the nomination process for the formation of the Advisory Group is available on meta [3] and we would encourage interested candidates who meet the criteria to consider applying. Please also pass this information on to people in the wider community. [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Funds_Dissemination_Committee [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group/Formationhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group Best, Barry -- Barry Newstead Chief Global Development Officer Wikimedia Foundation Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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] FAQ for fundraising resolutions
Thanks for posting this, Phoebe. My question about what you intend to do over the next 3 years wasn't answered. There is no point waiting three years and then re-evaluating the situation if you haven't made sure you've been gathering all the right information during those 3 years and that you are clear on what the questions you are actually trying to answer are. As a movement, we have a very poor record of following through on our trials with proper evaluations and that is because we never actually plan them out at the start. It is really important that we don't make that mistake again here. On 5 April 2012 18:35, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, The Board has published a QA document around the recently published fundraising funds dissemination resolutions. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination/Board_FAQ It's quite long -- sorry! -- but hopefully informative. Note that we did this as everyone was traveling and, in the interests of time, didn't put it up for a final vote -- so not every trustee may agree with every word, and we reserve the right to edit :) The first section of the FAQ, overview, focuses on board process for coming to a decision and a summary of the decisions; the next two sections focus on specific questions about the resolutions' content regarding fundraising funds dissemination plans. Some of the questions we were asked this past weekend already, and some of them we are anticipating might be asked. If you've got more questions, please put them on the talk page; if you want to discuss the resolutions themselves, there's a talk page on meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_and_Funds_Dissemination/Final_Board_resolutions all best, phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ 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] FAQ for fundraising resolutions
On 5 April 2012 19:14, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, Tom. If you don't mind I'll put it on the talk page; this will likely require some discussion to answer. By all means. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Engineering org charts
On 5 April 2012 02:05, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Has this been an observed issue within the WMF? In some areas. In my view, a well-functioning agile team is self-organizing and self-managed, and it's a manager's job to primarily set that team up for success, hire the right people, replace the people who aren't working out, and help escalate/resolve blocker or coordination issues outside the team's scope. Putting so much responsibility on the team's shoulders is in my opinion a good thing, because it treats them as adults accountable and responsible for the success or failure of their own work. What about personal development? Do your managers play an active role in helping their reports develop with objectives, feedback, training, etc? I imagine doing that for so many reports would be extremely time consuming. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
On 31 March 2012 06:45, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: There is no requirement to know everything. There is a requirement to make decisions in the best interests of the organisation, *as you see it*. If a trustee persistently abstains on the big decisions because they cant see *it* (no vision), or wish to avoid scrutiny, they are abusing their right to abstain and failing the organisation as a trustee. If they do it persistently, then sure. Is there a board member that is doing it persistently? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 96, Issue 95
On 31 March 2012 22:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: P.s.: It's a bit weird to focus so much on the reasons to oppose; why should opposing be justified /more/ than supporting? There's supposed to be a QA coming that will explain the supports. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
I just sent this to internal-l, because I hadn't seen this thread. This discussion should, of course, happen in public, so I'll repeat myself here: Thank you very much for this prompt announcement. I am glad to see the WMF board is open to some fundraising by chapters, but I would appreciate some more detail on what you intend to happen over the next 3 years. It sounds like the intention is that having a small number of chapters fundraise is an experiment and what happens after 2015 will depend on the results of that experiment. Is that an accurate interpretation? Will the parameters of that experiment be spelt out somewhere? The Wikimedia movement has a tendency to run trials and experiments without any clear planning and the result is invariably that nobody knows what to do at the end because we haven't actually collected the information we need and we aren't clear on what questions we were actually trying to find answers to. Can you provide some assurance that the same thing isn't going to happen here? On 30 March 2012 22:42, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote: Dear members of the community, After having discussed the final aspects of this today I would like to announce the following three resolutions 1) Board of Trustees Voting Transparency: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_of_Trustees_Voting_Transparency 1) Fundraising 2012: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Fundraising_2012 2) Funds Dissemination Committee: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee For those of you who are currently in Berlin, we will have a 2 hour window tomorrow to discuss this together, we invite you to send questions for this session to Harel Cain (harel.c...@gmail.com mailto:harel.c...@gmail.com) He will be moderating tomorrow's session which will be similar to the QA session we had in Paris. We are currently working on a Question and Answer document which we will publish as soon as possible. Although the decision has now been made, we have a large number of challenges ahead of us and I hope that we as a movement will come together to make the Funds Dissemination Committee a success by working with us to come up with answers tot the questions that we still have and helping to make it work! -- Ting Chen Member of the Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. E-Mail: tc...@wikimedia.org ___ 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] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
On 30 March 2012 23:17, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Since payment processing is not contemplated as a vector for receiving funds, either in 2012 or beyond, it makes sense to permit processing only where it provides a significant advantage in raising funds and where the reliability and integrity of funds processing is not in doubt. As the resolution states, all entities are permitted (and, I'm sure, encouraged) to raise funds in other ways. I would advise caution when thinking about other ways to raise funds. Chapters certainly should think about it, but given how easily we, as a movement, can raise so much money with the annual fundraiser (no other charitable movement has their own top-5 website to campaign on), there aren't many other fundraising options that make sense for us. There is no point devoting a large amount of effort to other fundraising options when they won't raise anywhere near as much. Chapters would be better off devoting that effort to programme work and just requesting more funds from the FDC. By all means pursue other fundraising options, but only when it is actually an efficient use of your time. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
On 31 March 2012 01:37, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas, I think 2015 is chosen because FDC is set to be evaluated at the end of 2014, following which, either it would act as the buffer on those issues or get back to the drawing board. But evaluated against what criteria? And what data is going to gathered during that time in order to feed into the evaluation? In this is intended as a trial, then it needs to be a well thought-out trial. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: I expect that the minutes will explain the varied positions of the board. If not, then the board should put in place procedures to prevent abuse of abstains. Could you elaborate on what you mean by abuse of abstains? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
On 31 March 2012 05:56, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: An abstention is a refusal to vote. By doing this, a trustee must have a good reason, such as conflict of interest, and it should be minuted why, or they are refusing the duties of their appointment and should be removed. To often board members choose to abstain rather than oppose, and that is a failure to do their duty. The WMF board has a surprisingly high number of unexplained abstains, especially in light of the Values including transparency. I disagree. If, after careful consideration, you are split and can't decide whether something is a good idea or not, the correct action is to abstain and let those that do have an opinion make the decision. If you are abstaining when you are actually opposed and are trying to avoid conflict rather than act according to your conscience, then that is failing to do your duty (it is a duty of any trustee to always act according to their own conscience), but that isn't necessarily what is happening here. I suspect the abstentions were because it was a compromise motion, so they went with a compromise vote. I hope we'll be able to see in the minutes what individual views actually were. I don't know if they actually voted on alternative motions, but it would be good if at least the discussions are properly minuted. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
On 31 March 2012 06:13, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: if you cant decide whether something is good or bad for the organisation, you are ill prepared for the vote (a procedural problem), or you are incompetent. Either that, or you're honest. Nobody knows everything (except me, of course!). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] March Board of Trustees meeting agenda
Phoebe, As important as the ongoing discussions and debate over fundraising and funds dissemination are, it concerns me that the WMF board is using one of its few in-person meetings to discuss almost nothing but fundraising and funds dissemination. Fundraising is a means to an end, nothing more. Shouldn't you be spending at least some time actually discussing that end? On 25 March 2012 18:33, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, The next WMF Board of Trustees meeting is scheduled for March 30-31, 2012 in Berlin, held with the chapters meeting. The agenda is now posted here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_meetings/March_30-31,_2012 Wikimedia Chapters Meeting information: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2012 Thanks, Phoebe (WMF Board Secretary 2011-12) -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ 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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!
On 21 March 2012 13:53, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Sue Gardner wrote: Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority. Thank you for sharing this. How much discussion has there been internally about this being the wrong approach? A good number of active editors (who I imagine Wikimedia is also trying to engage and retain) feel that Wikimedia's sole focus is on the numbers game. That is, Wikimedia is all about adding people, but doesn't seem to care about the quality of the content that it's producing (or the quality of the new contributors, for that matter). One key issue is that targets need to be measurable, or they don't work. It is very easy to measure the number of people contributing. It is much harder to measure the quality of what they produce. The Foundation's strategy plan is here: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF_StrategicPlan2011_spreads.pdf See pages 10 and 11 for the bit on improving quality. A lot of it is focused on measuring quality, because that is a real challenge (and, in fact, simply measuring something can be enough to prompt a significant improvement). The Foundation's 2011-12 annual plan is here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/3/37/2011-12_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE_.pdf The targets for the year are on page 28 and don't specifically mention quality. I would like to hear an explanation for that from someone at the Foundation. I'm guessing there isn't a target for actually improving quality because we aren't yet at the stage where we can measure it effectively, but wouldn't a target to produce a good quality measuring system have been good? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Draft charter of the Wikimedia Chapters Association
On 18 March 2012 21:18, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: Some further comments, having read the related pages in more depth: - To what legal body will the duties be paid? The idea is that the council will be a new legal body. - What is the purpose of duties exactly (there seems no obvious use for them by the council)? The council's main expenses, I would expect, will be staff salaries, travel and accommodation expenses for staff and travel and accommodation expenses for representatives. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books
I thought they had already stopped... I'm sure I remember an announcement like this a year or two ago... does anyone know what it is I'm remembering? On 13 March 2012 22:49, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: 2010's 32-volume set will be its last. (Now I want to get one, to replace my old set!) Future versions will be digital only. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/?smid=tw-nytimesseid=auto http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/13/encyclopedia-britannica-halts-print-publication Britannica president Jorge Cauz notes that their revenue from the online encyclopedia was already 15x that of the print version -- 15% of their total, compared to 1%. Most of their revenue for years has come from other targeted educational materials. As he says in the Guardian, Today our digital database is much larger than what we can fit in the print set. And it is up to date because we can revise it within minutes anytime we need to, and we do it many times each day. SJ. ___ 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] Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review?
On 11 March 2012 11:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 March 2012 11:19, Robert Alvarez vez...@gmail.com wrote: I see at least two current Arbcom members posting there quite recently and even responding to requests of banned users to do things on their behalf on Wikipedia (such as John Vandenberg working for Edward Buckner). Editing on behalf of banned users used to be a blocking offence. Presumably this has changed. To my knowledge, that has always been interpreted to allow editing on the suggestion of a banned user, but you have to decide for yourself whether it is a good edit and the responsibility for the edit lies entirely with you. There is nothing wrong with a banned user pointing out that there is a spelling mistake in an article and you going and fixing it. What is John Vandenberg alleged to have done for Edward Buckner? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Personality rights
There is really no point posting something like this without giving a link to the images and discussions in question. The best posting here is going to do is attract more attention to the question and get a more vigorous discussion about it, but it can't do that if you don't give a link. I don't think the WMF is going to intervene unless hosting the images is illegal. The WMF board's resolution simply urges the Commons community to act. If you think the community hasn't acted appropriately on a consistent basis, then you could send the WMF board evidence of that and they may decide to take firmer action. Posting vague complaints here isn't going to help in any way, though. On 11 March 2012 04:03, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Last year, the Wikimedia Foundation Board published the following Resolution: ---o0o--- The Wikimedia Foundation Board affirms the value of freely licensed content, and we pay special attention to the provenance of this content. We also value the right to privacy, for our editors and readers as well as on our projects. Policies of notability have been crafted on the projects to limit unbalanced coverage of subjects, and we have affirmed the need to take into account human dignity and respect for personal privacy when publishing biographies of living persons. However, these concerns are not always taken into account with regards to media, including photographs and videos, which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission. We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project.* We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify.* In alignment with these principles, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to: - Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable peoplehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently. - Ensure that all projects that host media have policies in place regarding the treatment of images of identifiable living people in private situations. - Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same. Approved 10-0. ---o0o--- Now, I am aware of a particular set of photographs on Commons, taken in a private situation. They were taken from Flickr by an anonymous contributor and uploaded to Commons. The images are no longer available on Flickr, having been removed long ago.Over the past year, the photographer has requested several times via OTRS that Commons delete these images. He said that the subjects could not understand how these images of them ended up on Commons, and were aghast to find them there. They were never meant to be released publicly. According to the deletion discussions, OTRS verified that the person making the request was indeed the owner of the Flickr account. Yet Commons administrators have consistently, through half a dozen deletion discussions, refused to delete the images, disregarding the objections of isolated editors who said that hosting the images in the clear absence of subject consent runs counter to policy. Closing admins' argument has been that licenses once granted cannot be revoked. Yet according to the above resolution, Commons should not be hosting these images. Not only was consent not obtained – an endemic situation – the images are kept even though consent has been expressly denied.Why are these images still on the Wikimedia Foundation server? I am happy to pass further details on to any WMF staff, steward or Commons bureaucrat who is willing and able to review the deletion requests and OTRS communications, and remove the images permanently. Andreas ___ 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:
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia financials - bank fees
On 11 March 2012 13:23, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Wouldn't that be because the WMF, and the bulk of its spending, is based in the U.S.? It would seem logical, then, that most of its funding is needed there as well. The bulk of its spending might be in the US, but a large minority isn't. There are grants to chapters and individuals outside the US, there are the WMF's own activities in India and Brazil, there are numerous WMF staff that work remotely from outside the US, etc.. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright and cakes...
On 5 March 2012 20:22, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 March 2012 14:54, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Silly question for you all: Is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_cake.jpg actually copyrighted to the WMF as a WMF logo? The cake was made for Wikimedia UK, so it's technically a derivative work, perhaps... Its a derivative work. Technically the cake is a copyvio. It was made for WMUK and WMUK has standing permission to use the logo for certain purposes, which could probably be interpreted as including cakes. Therefore, I don't think the cake is a copyvio. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright and cakes...
On 5 March 2012 23:14, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: eating the cake would damage the moral rights of the logo author. Since he cannot give general permission to violate moral rights, eating the cake would be illegal. If you take a slice out of the cake, that could be an issue since you have created a new work that negatively portrays the logo. I think the only option is the eat the entire cake at once. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A discussion list for Wikimedia (not Foundation) matters
On Mar 1, 2012 10:55 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: I would correct that not *all* chapters board members have access in internal. The number of subscriptions were limited to three per chapter, as I know. It was five per chapter, but that limit was removed a while back. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WikiNews...no NOT Wikinews
On 27 February 2012 20:18, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: It looks like it's just a promotion for Wikinews. It doesn't refer to or link anywhere else. It's not totally accurate, from what I understand of Wikinews, but I'm not sure how it's a threat? Yes, it is clearly talking about our Wikinews. It's very odd, though... it sounds like it is supposed to be an official advert from us, but if there were any plans to implement such radical changes to the Wikinews model I would have expected to have heard about them, so who actually made that video and why??? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten
On 19 February 2012 18:06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, 19/02/2012 08:12: Do the people at MeatballWiki know? Why should they care? This is where it all started, http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToLeave The Right to Leave is very different from the Right to Vanish. Nobody can stop you leaving, so the Right to Leave is just a statement of fact. The Right to Vanish is something that we (and possibly this new law) explicitly grant to people. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten
On 19 February 2012 20:13, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: How can we remove ten thousand comments and signatures using the users real name or well-known handle? With a bot (or AWB) going through the What Links Here list for your user page. People have done that before (although maybe not if they had ten thousand comments to change). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On 18 February 2012 14:48, CherianTinu Abraham tinucher...@gmail.com wrote: Am I the one person feeling that the way this debate is going in a stupid direction that is totally irrelevant to the scope of this list ? I thought we were to discuss Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 . Just a gentle reminder ! :P I'm quite enjoying this thread... it makes a nice change from going round in circles as we have been doing for the last month or two. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] My public aplogies to Jan-Bart (was Movement roles letter, Feb 2012)
I find oi, you works pretty well! ;) On Feb 16, 2012 3:09 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 16 February 2012 12:32, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 February 2012 11:27, John Du Hart compwhi...@gmail.com wrote: Is this really something to get upset over? It's not as if he was calling you stupid, he simply misspelled your name (shortened it, really). People's own names are extremely important to them. Very true. When I was in school learning journalism, that was the only way to get an automatic fail: getting someone's name wrong. (Now I say that, I guess you also failed if you plagiarized or fabricated. But getting someone's name wrong was the most seemingly-trivial way to fail.) While we're on the topic, here's a public service announcement. It's Bishakha Datta, not Bishaka Datta. The single most-frequently misspelled name on our lists, AFAICT. Also, Erik Moeller or Erik Möller with umlaut. Never Erik Moller with no umlaut :-) Thanks, Sue ___ 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] My public aplogies to Jan-Bart (was Movement roles letter, Feb 2012)
On Feb 16, 2012 3:22 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: While we're on the topic, here's a public service announcement. It's Bishakha Datta, not Bishaka Datta. The single most-frequently misspelled name on our lists, AFAICT. Also, Erik Moeller or Erik Möller with umlaut. Never Erik Moller with no umlaut :-) Oh cmon we're not going to start using umlauts (exception - heavy metal umlauts?). Erik has to settle with having his name misspelled, unless he considers changing it. ;) (think of all the time-saving from looking at the alt-key codes for us non-German keyboard users) As Sue said, oe is an accepted way of saying ö if you can't easily get the umlaut. Using o is just wrong (it would be pronounced completely differently). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] My public aplogies to Jan-Bart (was Movement roles letter, Feb 2012)
On Feb 16, 2012 3:47 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: I used to be really antsy over my name; to the point where, at school, I refused to be taught by one teach for a time because she kept calling me Tom. Nowadays even I call myself that. Surely normal social convention applies; if someone raises the issue then Don't be a dick and take extra care. Otherwise slip ups/confusion/mistakes shouldn't be the end of the world... Tom (P.S. it now wierds me out when people call me Thomas... go figure) I know exactly what you mean! I used to insist on being called Thomas, but now even introduce myself as Tom. Wikimedians often call me Thomas because that's what I have gmail set to call me and they know me mostly from emails. While I don't mind at all, it sounds (or looks) strange to me every time. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
Thank you for sharing this, Ting. I think this is an excellent set of proposals with which to start a more structured discussion than we've currently had on this topic. I fail to see the attack on chapters that other people are talking about. There is a distinct difference between Chapters and Partner Organisations in that Chapters are non-overlapping (with each other - they will overlap with Partner Organisations). This makes them unique among Wikimedia organisations in that there will usually be a specific Chapter that is unambiguously responsible for a given activity, while there often won't be a single Partner Organisation that have undisputed jurisdiction (for want of a better word) over it. I don't see anything in this proposal to suggest that this unique nature of chapters will be degraded. There has been considerable discussion about whether non-chapter groups will be able to participate in things like the Chapter-selected WMF board seat selection process. There is nothing in the proposal regarding that, so I would be interested in hearing the thoughts from the board regarding that question. I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations. One Chapter - One Vote is problematic as it is (eg. chapters represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different numbers of members, very different budgets, very different levels of activity, some represent countries while others represent small geographies [is it right that the US should get two votes just because they can't get their acts together and form a national chapter?]). Those problems would be even greater for Partner Organisations (would an organisation set up to work on a very general topic like History be entitled to equal representation with one set up to work on a very specific topic like Submarines?). It might make sense to let them participate in discussions, but trying to give them votes just isn't going to work. On 13 February 2012 07:09, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote: The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community: The organizational structure of the Wikimedia movement is growing rapidly: since 2010, the number of chapters has grown by 50%, and the size of the Foundation has doubled. Over the past 18 months, the movement roles group has worked to clarify the roles and responsibilities of different groups working within our international movement, and the Board thanks those who have participated in this process. We want to make it easier for a wider variety of groups to be recognized as part of the movement. Below are draft resolutions to recognize new models of affiliation, based on input received to date. They are posted on Meta for feedback, to encourage discussion and improvement. We encourage everyone to participate on the talk pages between now and 10 March. We aim to finalize, approve, and publish the resolutions by 28 March. Thanks, Ting. Posted on Meta at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/affiliations == Expansion of movement affiliation models == In acknowledgement of the diversity of groups contributing to our movement, the Board recognizes an expanded framework for affiliation of Wikimedia groups furthering our movement: *: '''Chapters''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on supporting related work within a geography. Chapters must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Partner Organizations''': legal entities with bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's, focused on a cultural, linguistic, or other topic; not be exclusive to any geography. Partner organizations must reach agreement with the Foundation for use of the Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising; and would be allowed to use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia. *: '''Associations''': open-membership groups with an established contact person and stated purpose, which need basic use of the Wikimedia trademarks for promotion and organization of projects and events. A new association can be formed by listing its information in a public place, and confirming their contact information. An association contact can sign an optional agreement to use Wikimedia marks in a limited way in the scope of their work. Small projects can be supported through individual reimbursement. *: '''Affiliates''': like-minded organizations that actively support the movement's work. They are listed publicly and granted limited use of the marks on websites and posters indicating their support of and collaboration with Wikimedia. == Recognizing new affiliation models == In connection with its decision to expand the framework of affiliated groups, the Board expands the
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising Letter Feb 2012
Ting, Thank you for this. I'm confused, though. You say you want to have another month of discussions, but I don't see any questions in your letter. What is it you want to discuss? Everyone that wants to has expressed their views. The numerous debates on meta and elsewhere have reached their natural conclusions. This continuing uncertainty is very bad for the movement. If the WMF wants to take charge of the movement then you need to actually make a decision. You can't both take charge and be indecisive. On Feb 9, 2012 8:12 AM, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote: The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community: Dear members of the Wikimedia Movement, As you are probably aware we have been discussing the the future of fundraising and fund dissemination for the Wikimedia Movement for almost 6 months now. After discussing fundraising and funds dissemination at this past meeting, the board has drafted the following statement. It our intention to discuss these matters in the coming weeks to come to a final decision mid March. But first we would like to thank everyone who took part in the discussion so far and spent their valuable time providing us with their viewpoints which we have of course taken into account in our decision making process. We hope that you will continue to participate by giving feedback on this letter. ==Funds dissemination== The board wants to create a volunteer-driven body to make recommendations for funding for movement-wide initiatives (Working title: Funds Dissemination Committee, FDC). The Wikimedia Foundation has decision-making authority, because it has fiduciary responsibilities to donors which it legally cannot delegate. The new body will make recommendations for funds dissemination to the Wikimedia Foundation. We anticipate a process in which the Wikimedia Foundation will review and approve all but a small minority of recommendations from the FDC. In the event that the Wikimedia Foundation does not approve a recommendation from the FDC, and the FDC and the Wikimedia Foundation aren't subsequently able to reach agreement, then the FDC can ask the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to request the recommendation be reconsidered. #the FDC will be a diverse body of people from across our movement (which may include paid staff) with appropriate expertise for this purpose, whose primary purpose is to disseminate funds to advance the Wikimedia mission; #the WMF staff will support and facilitate the work of the FDC #Proposals can range from one time smaller contributions for small projects from individuals to larger financing for operational costs of chapters or associations The board intends to evaluate this process together with the FDC and see if it is working. ==Fundraising== Our thoughts on fundraising are less specific. We have come to the following two statements which are important * If and when payment processing is done by chapters, it should be done primarily for reasons of tax, operational efficiency (including incentivizing donor cultivation and relations), should not be in conflict with funds dissemination principles and goals, and should avoid a perception of entitlement. * The board is sharpening the criteria for payment processing. Payment processing is not a natural path to growth for a chapter; and payment processing will likely be an exception -- most chapters will not do so. The Wikimedia Board of Trustees NB: Please note that rather than spend a LOT of time on wording at this time, the board preferred to amend the above text if necessary when moving towards a resolution. This letter indicates our intent, and we may wordsmith as needed in our final resolutions. -- Ting Chen Member of the Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. E-Mail: tc...@wikimedia.org __**_ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.**org foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/foundation-lhttps://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] Fundraising Letter Feb 2012
On 9 February 2012 20:01, Emmanuel Engelhart emman...@engelhart.org wrote: Without any financial autonomy (that means the ability to raise and invest funds), a chapter can only beg for money. I do not share your vision of the chapter's future - neither for the old nor for the young ones. Plenty of charities are funded primarily or exclusively by grants and they manage. It's not a great position to be in, but it can work. I do think chapters should fundraise, but its a more nuanced question than you suggest. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Cartman Gets an Anal Probe English Wikipedia's featured article today
On Feb 7, 2012 1:50 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: Why are not that decissions taken under community consensus? that some articles will not be featured on the main page (although he prefers to keep that list short and it currently consists only of the article Jenna Jameson): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raul654/archive25#Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED_and_the_Main_Page I read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us that Wikipedia has no editorial board. Why is there a person deciding what can't be shown in the main page? He's been doing it for years and has never screwed up badly enough for the community to take the job away from him. It's as simple as that. The Wikipedia community can be uncharacteristically pragmatic at times! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links
On 4 February 2012 13:57, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links I have started a strike to protest against the collection of personal information through edit links. I won't edit articles with articleFeedbackv5_ct_token= ids in their URLs, as has become the case with the English Wikipedia article Costa Concordia disaster. Could you explain what personal data you believe is being collected? From what I can tell, all that is being collected is information on whether you edit the article after viewing it or not. That isn't personal. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Feb 2, 2012 8:22 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: Would you please also comment on Russia which has a chapter consisting of I believe seven (or nine?) members, which does not accept new members and maintains an invitation-only mailing list (which is open not only to chapter members, but one still needs to apply and give an explanation why he/she wants to be on the list, or be invited by a chapter member)? Everyone can be involved in the activities organized by the chapter (which are admittedly not so many), but what about elections and representation? We're getting very off topic, but you are right that there is a problem with dormant chapters. I know nothing about the Russian chapter, but I do know how difficult it was to to get the first Wikimedia UK out of the way. Perhaps the WMF board should ask ChapCom to advise them on what chapters are inactive or insufficiently open. The board can then give them a year to improve or hold new, open elections and remove their chapter status if they don't. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 03:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? * The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the candidate has no problem with that. Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates. It was felt that it would be good to have confidential discussions, in contrast to the public ones that are associated with the community elected seats, because that might attract different candidates than would stand for the community elected seats (ie. candidates that don't want lots of discussion about every good and bad quality they have happening in public - the selection process can involve a much greater intrusion on privacy than actually serving on the board does). Was it a conscious decision by the chapters to change that approach? I was under the impression that you had decided to stick with the same process we used last time. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vice President?
On 1 February 2012 11:59, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: Really strange because the title of president and that of vice-president belong to the board. The title President is sometimes used by the chair of the board, but Vice President is usually an executive, non-board, position. Large banks, for instance, often have hundreds of VPs - it's a middle-manager rank. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the chapter seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter members seem to not be considered part of the movement. I didn't get that impression at all. The board doesn't just need to be representative of the community. It also needs to be capable of running the WMF as well as possible. We need to balance those two goals. Having a couple of chapter-selected seats is a good way of doing that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 22:36, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Chapter board members, since they serve on boards themselves, are obviously going to know more about what the board needs than the general community. They also have long and detailed discussions about who to select, rather than just having a simple vote. Additionally, having chapter-selected seats helps the WMF and chapters work better together. I would think that direct appointment of those with specific skill sets would be how the board ensure it is capable of running the WMF as well as possible. Of course, but that wouldn't be at all representative and would make the existing board too powerful. It's all about balance. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 22:38, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: In the 2011 community board election, less than 3400 users voted.[1] In the 2012 chapter board election, 39 chapters consisting of more than 4000 identified people will be voting.[2] Those 4000 people won't be voting, though. The chapter boards who they elected will be voting on their behalf. That's not the same thing. (It was said above that some chapters might let their membership decide how the chapter will vote, but if the chapters really are using the same process as last time that isn't an option because the list of candidates is confidential - you can't vote if you don't know who the options are.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 23:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Wikimedia Portugal held votes between their members to 2008 and 2010 elections. I know WMFR, WMUK and WMAR do the same, and the list can go on... Really? If I had known WMPT had breached confidentiality like that at the time, I would have voided your vote... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 2 February 2012 00:06, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, from the results of the least chapter and community seats election my opinion is that the former are *wyyy* more en.wiki-centered than the first. Really? How do you work that out? The current occupants of the chapter seats are one English Wikipedian and one German Wikipedians (50% en.wiki), the community seats are two English Wikipedians and one German/Chinese Wikipedian (67% en.wiki). (Judging by their biographies at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees ) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 2 February 2012 01:53, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse my ignorance, I haven't read the 50 mails yet, but how should the candidate be chosen? By community vote? By chapter's members ? (do you need registering ?). Will the WMF chose among them? Sorry if I missed the relevant docs, I'm new to this. Also, can I present myself as a candidate? Can I vote? You should at least read the first email... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] List moderation (WAS: Politico...)
On 23 January 2012 14:53, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On the surface this is a very frivolous post. Funnily enough I have a serious point I have been nursing along for a while. Any list moderators listening? There are times when the mailing list itself can be a source of infighting and internal politics. I submit this is not one of them, and as such, I think modified rules to the soft moderation rules should be adopted. Blatant trolling should get a one strike and you are on hard moderation response, and monthly moderation limits should be lifted entirely. We really are on war footing. Not bean-bags at 50 yards footing. We need to sort things out, and more talk is a good thing, not a bad thing. I'm splitting this out into a new thread, since it's off-topic for the lobbying thread. The problem with zero tollerance for blatant trolling (which is a policy everyone would agree to) is that there is often a lot of disagreement over what actually constitutes blatant trolling. If you aren't careful, you can end up with more heated debates about moderation than you ever had about the actual controversies that were being discussed. I agree that more talk is a good thing. The moderation limits serve two purposes - to keep the total volume down and also to avoid a small number of people dominating discussion. I don't think the former is necessarily desirable, but a case can be made for the latter. I suggest the moderation limits be set at 5% of the emails so far in that month (with some common sense applied in the first week or so - obviously the first person to send an email in a month would be at 100% until the next email!). In most months, that would be around 30 emails, but it means that when there is simply a lot of discussion going on people can contribute to it without being unnecessarily silenced half-way through the month. I was looking at the statistics last night (I'm not too far off 30 posts so far this month, so wanted to keep an eye on it) and apart from two people (who know who they are!) it's currently rare for anyone to go over 30 posts except in particularly busy months. I don't think anyone has actually been put on moderation in those busy months, so the policy might as well reflect actual practice. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article
On 23 January 2012 18:09, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote: Since it's unlikely the foundation mailing list will agree to enable such a comment section on every Wikipedia article (although enabling it is quite easy: just choose a comment extension from http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_Matrix/AllExtensions and enable it on Wikipedia), maybe we can talk about implementing it on a separate website. For example, create a website named WikiSocial.com. This will be a Web 2.0 version of Wikipedia, which lets you browse Wikipedia's content but also provides Web 2.0 social features such as the comment section, social sharing buttons (e.g. Tweet this article). Any interest? :-) There might well be some interest, but it doesn't sound like something the Wikimedia movement would do. There is nothing stopping someone else mirroring Wikipedia's content and adding a comments section. The whole point of having Wikipedia be free (as in speech) is so that other people can re-use it in interesting ways, and this sounds like a good example of that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On 22 January 2012 19:24, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote: Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on direct lobbying of related issues. Basically that means they can say this is good and that's good - but they can't actually endorse a party or individual. They can educate on that person - so and so wants to do this - but they can't then so so vote for ABC instead or anything along those lines. It can get a little trick if an org speaks on an issue that is in no way connected to their mission - but SOPA/PIPA and just about any technology related legislation falls within WMF's mission. Geoff, the WMF General Counsel, was advising everyone involved in the media work surrounding the blackout to be even more careful than that and stay well clear of mentioning any individual politicians to avoid any possibility of trouble. Given the overabundance of caution that was shown during the whole thing, I don't think we need to worry. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] new idea new feature
People can subscribe and set their preferences to not receive any emails, then they can email the list with no problems. On Jan 22, 2012 6:44 PM, keisuke koyanagi koyakeiaa...@gmail.com wrote: 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. http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg23718.html this post has not concreat reason to integrate service . so I reinforce it.then acheve more powerful integration in another way. I have an idea to improve usability. [00:36] koyakei__ I want to add friendlist to wikipedia. [00:39] koyakei__ There are someone ,who want to overwhelm regulation of what is not wikipedia [00:39] koyakei__ I analyse them , they wants to place to expose opinion. [00:40] koyakei__ Wikipedia is very attractive place. [00:41] koyakei__ So attractive place gather many people who wants to expose opinion. [00:42] koyakei__ block them from wikipedia, they would do same activity in another project. [00:43] koyakei__ Blocking is not good solution. So I propose. block someone individually. [00:44] koyakei__ I have more idea about this broblem. Where should I talking about that. [00:45] koyakei__ Aer there someone propose about that. in somewhere else. [00:45] koyakei__ ? Chat room member answerd , I should talk it here .So I post. I do not know english situation. But Japanese situation is like that. To prevent this I propose. add friend list to wiki. then tagging article per comment. And serach tagged comment ,then create 1 article. In this case , almost we do not need blocking from project. and there is noone run away to new project then do same thing. Searching needs power of server. Clutural analyse. I feel Japanese are difficlut to classfy our char actor.Because of this , we write IP address on wikipedea. If we wrote with real name in wikipedia ,that is strictry linked author's back ground . and argue in note use his background. That is too much for volunteer. In wikia I saw an article . http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Personal_history In Japanese proverb , this question is yes to all people . I think linking diffrent elements is Japanese habit. But recentry that is changed..Evidence is this article. I feel linking power is increasing, ability of classify will down. in this situation. what is not wiki will be weak to separate project. befor that, think about integrate all project is better. With semantc and timeline and socialy. I beleve integrate all web service (for example wiki, twitter, SNS ,anonymous BBS)is trend. Are there anybody think about this problem? This post is 1%of my idea. Long post is bother to read,today I stop here. My english is poor so, someone who can here about this please call me on skype: koyakei. koyanagi keisuke -- 小柳圭輔 Koyanagi Keisuke ___ 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] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article
There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for discussing the article, though, rather than its topic. While we are more than a conventional encyclopedia, we are still an encyclopaedia and I don't think we should add job and product adverts to our articles. If people want to make friends, they can go to Facebook. If people want to find or contribute encyclopedic information (and, perhaps, make some friends along the way as an added bonus) then they should come to us. On Jan 22, 2012 9:43 PM, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote: Hello All, I just filed a feature request which I think is of strategic interest to Wikipedia: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33889 Bug 33889 - Request to add a comment section under every Wikipedia article By providing a comment section under every Wikipedia article, we can enable people interested in that topic to talk with each other, make friends and exchange external resources pertaining to that topic (e.g. books, products, jobs, external references, etc.). Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia; it is also a very valuable topic navigation and positioning service that navigates you to any conceivable topic in your mind, and once you're at that topic's Wikipedia article, the article's URL becomes a unique address that positions that topic. With this position, we can do many useful things (such as the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph), just like we can do many useful things with a geographic information system (GIS) such as Google Earth. There are many MediaWiki extensions that can add a comment section to every Wikipedia article. Just go to http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_Matrix/AllExtensions and search for comment or discussion. Best Regards, Ziyuan Yao ___ 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] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On 22 January 2012 22:26, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: At this point, I'll understand if you hit me with a [citation needed] here, and I confess that what I'm telling probably is best classified as original research. But don't take my word for it -- talk to other NGOs that work in the Washington policy community, and you'll find plenty of confirmation of what I'm telling you here. There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Is there any independent research on this topic? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article
On 22 January 2012 22:31, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote: Besides this, another disadvantage of the current Talk tab is it uses the wiki way to talk, not the typical comment section we see under every YouTube video, Flickr image, Facebook status update, etc. The wiki way to talk may be favored by the Wikipedia community, but is really weird to the general public. There has been some work done on ways to improve our talk page interface, although nothing has ever been finished. See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/LiquidThreads_3.0 for some info. The unique merit of using Wikipedia as a discussion place is its uniqueness. There are many cat forums on the Web, but they're scattered all over the Web; in contrast, the Wikipedia article [[Cat]] is a unique and prominent place for the topic cat. If people want to go to a centralized, unified place to talk about cats, they should come to [[Cat]]. Obligatory xkcd link: http://xkcd.com/927/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On 22 January 2012 22:54, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Not only that, but of course people who eat food and drink water to sustain themselves are unlikely to give proper weight to Breatharian points of view! That pesky POV problem keeps rearing its noisy head wherever you look. ;) Indeed. That's why I asked for independent research. Research from NGOs that have chosen not to engage in lobbying would be just as useless. I welcome your independent research project when you get it started. Or anybody's, really. I suppose the null hypothesis is that one can simply stay silent and wins the issue anyway. Obviously, I tend to fall on the Gandhi/Martin Luther King side of that issue -- at least I'm transparent about my biases. I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more than just monetary cost, of course.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Nederland reports
On 22 January 2012 22:56, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Hi Ziko, I appreciate your email, but it seems you forgot the link. Also, I personally strongly prefer it if you could include the actual reports in the email. It makes searching finding much easier, as well as offline reading. I agree - please at least provide a summary in the email itself. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa
On 22 January 2012 23:09, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more than just monetary cost, of course.) Ah, then the proper experiment would have been for Wikipedians not to black out enwiki for a day and see how effective that was in changing the debate? Of course not. If you were going to do that kind of experiment, you would need to both blackout Wikipedia and not black it out and compare the two. Obviously, that isn't possible. Not everything lends itself to such simple experimentation. Because, as you know, the blackout did entail a significant non-monetary costs. Of course, and very difficult ones to quantify, which makes analysing this sort of thing even harder. The trick, of course, is that political experimentation of this sort is similar to human experimentation generally -- the risk is that the experiment, for all you learn from it, leads to negative consequences down the line. My own view is that the blackout was unquestionably the right thing to do, and I'm hugely proud to be associated in my own small way with the people who took the risk of making our voices heard this time. That's a good analogy. The approach often taken with studies about humanity is not to do experiments (because they can be harmful) but instead to examine things that have already happened or are happening anyway. You could make some progress in working out how effective lobbying is for non-profits by comparing countries where such lobbying is common and countries where it isn't, or by comparing sub-sectors where it is common and sub-sectors where it isn't. It wouldn't surprise me if someone has done some research like that. As an expert on the subject, I was hoping you would know about some. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article
On 22 January 2012 23:08, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote: They can do what academics have always done: read each other's published works and go to conferences. If a subject is so obscure that only a handle of researchers are involved in it, then it probably isn't sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article anyway. That's exactly an egg first or chicken first problem. Great discoveries almost always come from rarely known ideas. I don't see a problem. Academia is very good at coming up with new ideas that start off very small and obscure and, if they prove promising, grow and become mainstream. It is only once they have grown, at least a little, that they become appropriate subject-matter for an encyclopaedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Adding a comment section under every Wikipedia article
On 22 January 2012 23:25, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote: This comment section idea can be an experiment. If it does more good than bad, we can keep it. Otherwise we can remove it. It's just as simple as enabling/disabling a MediaWiki extension. How would you measure how much good and bad it did? There is no point doing an experiment unless we have clear measures of success. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Resolution:Developing Scenarios for future of fundraising
On 18 January 2012 11:48, Pronoein prono...@gmail.com wrote: Le 18/01/2012 05:25, Ting Chen a écrit : * Minimal cost and minimal disruption. All Wikimedia fundraising activities must aim to raise the maximum possible amount of money from donors while minimizing administrative costs as much as possible (in order to reserve the largest amount of money possible for programmatic activity), while causing minimal disruption and annoyance for users of the projects. Why does the Board of Trustees think that WMF should raise the «maximum possible amount of money»? Why not ask for what is needed and nothing more? It's not a particularly well worded principle. I would go with something like: All Wikimedia fundraising activities must aim to balance the work we can do towards our goals with the administrative costs and the disruption and annoyance to users of the projects. There isn't a single well-defined number that is the amount we need. We should keep raising more until we get to the point where the harm from raising an extra $100 is more than the good we can do by spending that $100. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] RESCHEDULED: Mailing lists server migration today
I advise you delay it again - we need the mailing lists at the moment to coordinate the blackout. On 13 January 2012 13:54, Mark Bergsma m...@wikimedia.org wrote: (rescheduled after the cancelled maintenance of last Friday) Hi, Today I will be migrating the mailing lists from a very old server (lily) in Amsterdam, to a new server (sodium) in our new Ashburn data center. Mailman will be upgraded to version 2.1.13 along the way. During the migration, mail will be delayed as all data will need to be transferred to the new host. No mail should go lost, but no new mails will be sent out during the process until done, and the web interface will be unavailable. This shouldn't take about one hour, if all goes well. I will report here when things should be back up and running. Afterwards, please let us know of any new issues, in bugzilla or on IRC (#wikimedia-tech). We don't expect any problems, but as with any software upgrade or migration, this can't be guaranteed... Thanks, -- Mark Bergsma m...@wikimedia.org Lead Operations Architect Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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] RESCHEDULED: Mailing lists server migration today
Just seen the datestamp... why did that email just come through now?! On 18 January 2012 13:42, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: I advise you delay it again - we need the mailing lists at the moment to coordinate the blackout. On 13 January 2012 13:54, Mark Bergsma m...@wikimedia.org wrote: (rescheduled after the cancelled maintenance of last Friday) Hi, Today I will be migrating the mailing lists from a very old server (lily) in Amsterdam, to a new server (sodium) in our new Ashburn data center. Mailman will be upgraded to version 2.1.13 along the way. During the migration, mail will be delayed as all data will need to be transferred to the new host. No mail should go lost, but no new mails will be sent out during the process until done, and the web interface will be unavailable. This shouldn't take about one hour, if all goes well. I will report here when things should be back up and running. Afterwards, please let us know of any new issues, in bugzilla or on IRC (#wikimedia-tech). We don't expect any problems, but as with any software upgrade or migration, this can't be guaranteed... Thanks, -- Mark Bergsma m...@wikimedia.org Lead Operations Architect Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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] Wikimania 2013 - Announcement of Jury and invitation to bid
On 12 January 2012 19:52, James Forrester jdforres...@gmail.com wrote: To re-iterate my comment in November, I'm sure the whole Wikimedia community would love to see as many good bids as possible. There are already a few bids[2] on Meta, but if you or your local community are thinking about putting one in, you need to get it started and in a reasonable state by the end of 28 January 2012 at the very latest[3]. Thank you for taking the initiative and getting things moving with this. What do you mean by in a reasonable state in the above? The page on meta only says you need to have created a page added your city to the list by then and doesn't suggest that the page needs to have any significant content by then. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] the limits for fundraising. Was Blnk tag jokes are now obsolete.
Check the page history - I don't think those bits were added by the foundation. On Jan 4, 2012 3:26 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Re Tom's suggestion that we have an RFC on meta to discuss what we are and aren't prepared to do when fundraising; We already have a discussion at Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_Guiding_principles_with_regards_to_fundraising . Funny thing is that debate has almost been the mirror of here with the Foundation proposing things like Fundraising in line with our mission and values: Our fundraising activities should aim to raise a movement budget using only methods that strengthen our mission and values and communicate them to all of our users and the world and even All Wikimedia fundraising activities should be truthful with prospective donors. May I suggest that we revive that overly quiet discussion? WSC Message: 2 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 17:28:39 + From: Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete. To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: caaqb2s-nypp7attk8aq6q2o9bgc3hcfk5+hxyya4b1ossmb...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 14:50, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: Fabricating a sense of urgency that donations are immediately necessary at the end of the campaign to keep the projects operational and freely available (ie, Please help Wikipedia pay its bills in 2012 [1], Last day to make a tax-deductible contribution to keep Wikipedia free in 2012 [2], etc) is as unethical now as it was in last year's campaign (Please donate to keep Wikipedia free in the banner you linked to [3], etc). This discussion about blinking banners might seem trivial but it serves as a very obvious reminder, in style now as well as substance, of the disjoint between the fundraising team's work and the norms and ethos of the community and projects. Would it be an idea to have some kind of RfC or something like that on Meta where community members could come up with a list of things we roughly agree are the limits for fundraising. I think the fundraising team have done really well, but there have been a few things we really need to fix for next year, starting with the limits that the community are comfortable with regarding banner length, tone, graphical style etc. The other thing I think we really need to fix before next year is making clear to OTRS volunteers exactly what the right channels and actions are to handle fundraiser-related emails. And maybe it would be useful if we could go through fundraiser-related emails in OTRS and somehow tag the feedback into categories (perhaps on OTRS Wiki) and then give back to the community some statistics about how many complaints and emails we have had about fundraising and what the nature of those complaints and emails are so the Foundation and community can better tune the banners and fundraising for next year. On a subjective level, there's lots of things I've seen in e-mail from people: they would like to buy a t-shirt rather than donate (the Foundation really need to sort out merchandise - other similar non-profits like Mozilla Foundation, Creative Commons and so on have really nailed merchandise), they want SMS donations in various European countries, they want it so that if they've donated it removes the banner for the rest of the fundraiser. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ 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] the limits for fundraising. Was Blnk tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 4 January 2012 16:24, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Check the IP history; Jan-Bart added them ;p Now I'm on an actual computer and not trying to go through page histories on my phone, I've taken a closer look. The bit about being truthful was in the initial version. The other bit is the result of edits from several people (including me, although I'm not sure any of my wording survived the process). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On Jan 4, 2012 12:44 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: The WMF's conclusions about what banners work best are based on extensive testing. What are yours based on? My guts. BTW How have those tests worked out? You know the ones that went on for months before the fundraiser to replace Jimmy. There were numerous non-Jimmy banners used during the fundraiser because they were tested and proved to work well. The Jimmy banners were used extensively too because they still perform very well in the tests, particularly when improved using the lessons learnt from the other banners that were tested. In future, I suggest you pay more attention rather than asking such ill-informed questions. I wasn't involved in the tests - everything I've said in this email came from the reports the fundraising team published before and during the fundraiser. If you had bothered to read them, you wouldn't have had to ask. They are all on meta - I suggest you go and read them. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone - It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's hard to find the right balance. This banner isn't just annoying, it is untrue. You can make a tax deductible donation tomorrow just as easily as you can make it today. It will get deducted off next year's taxes, not this year's, but unless you are trying to reduce your tax bill to zero that makes absolutely no difference. It is also misleading to claim that donations are required to keep Wikipedia free when you've already raised more than enough to cover core spending. There is no way anything that would be considered making Wikipedia unfree would be done if there were no further donations. All that would happen is a few non-core programmes would have to be cut or downsized. I'm pretty sure I raised both these concerns last year when you ran similar banners and they were never addressed other than to say that such banners raise a lot of money (which is the point - they are misleading people into donating a lot of money). Could you explain how you justify misleading your donors in this way? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 31 December 2011 15:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Thomas Dalton, 31/12/2011 15:58: On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exleyzex...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone - It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's hard to find the right balance. This banner isn't just annoying, it is untrue. You can make a tax deductible donation tomorrow just as easily as you can make it today. It will get deducted off next year's taxes, not this year's, but unless you are trying to reduce your tax bill to zero that makes absolutely no difference. I'm not familiar with USA deducibility (the WMF legal department doesn't give advice either ;) https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Deductibility_of_donations ), so could you explain this point? Aren't there annual limits to deductible amounts? I'm not particularly familiar with USA tax law either. In the UK, I believe you are simply limited by your taxable income - you end up paying negative tax. If there are other limits that apply in the USA, then my point still stands - unless you are already planning to max out your limit next year, it makes essentially no difference if you deduct your donation from this year's taxes or next year's. Whatever the limits are, I doubt many donors are expecting to be anywhere near them. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 31 December 2011 17:31, Mono mium monom...@gmail.com wrote: Seriously, get over it. That's your attitude to the WMF misleading donors? Being honest when raising funds in incredibly important. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 31 December 2011 19:28, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote: Geni - You're being mean. On New Years Eve! Happy New Years! Neither Geni's meanness or the date are relevant to the point he was making. It certainly seems to be the case that the WMF doesn't consider reducing expenditure, rather than more aggressive fundraising, as a solution to not raising as much as you had hoped. What is it that you won't be able to do if you use non-blinking banners and therefore don't raise as much money? Is whatever it is really worth annoying everyone so much? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 1 January 2012 00:24, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: And when it was pointed out that a reference to Sue Gardner as Wikipedia Executive Director was inaccurate, Zack's initial response was We're going to test Wikimedia against Wikipedia in the banner right now. (In other words, We'll test the truth against a falsehood to see which brings in more money.) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-December/062932.html I find this attitude rather disconcerting. It got worse. They changed it to Wikimedia Executive Director and when it was pointed out that it should be Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Philippe (who was running the fundraiser last year) said (on 13 December 2010 on the Fundraising mailing list, which is private so I can't give a link): So yeah, we're doing everything we can to maximize the income. (I won't quote the entire paragraph, but the context is essentially Yeah, we know there are problems with these banners but they raise money so we're going to do it anyway.) It is, as you say, a very disconcerting attitude. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 1 January 2012 02:23, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Enough, Thomas. After a reasonable explanation of the actions taken today, you are now dredging up complaints about *last year's* fundraiser. The actions you're complaining about above were not repeated this year. This is called learning from experience, and it is a talent that is highly prized within the WMF family of projects. After all, there is not a one of us who has not made an error in action or judgment. Please stop. They have not learned. Zack said, further up this thread: It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's hard to find the right balance. That is wrong. You can both not use annoying banners and have a short fundraiser by simply spending less. I'm not saying that's necessarily what the WMF should do, but it should consider it, which comments like Zack's make it clear they aren't doing. Whenever you are considering doing something to raise funds that will have negative side effects you need to think about whether whatever you'll be able to do with those funds is worth those side effects. The WMF doesn't seem to get that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 1 January 2012 02:42, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you who have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially about how annoyed some people were by a certain fundraising banner. It seems to me that it is your straw man that has derailed things here. The whole point I've been trying to make is that fundraising and spending are intimately related and can't be considered separately from each other. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia's secret wikis
On 31 December 2011 00:52, Jan Kučera kozuc...@gmail.com wrote: I see following wikis hold secred information: http://internal.wikimedia.org http://office.wikimedia.org http://board.wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can NOT freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. We can imagine whatever worlds we like, but we have to live in the real world. In the real world, not everything can be made publicly available. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Software idea: a Wikipedia Explorer that lets you browse Wikipedia and more
On 27 December 2011 21:01, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote: Remember there was MSN Explorer (desktop software) that let you browse MSN and use MSN services such as Hotmail? Remember Google Earth (desktop software) that lets you browse the Earth and provides additional services based on the Earth? We can also make a Wikipedia Explorer (desktop software) that lets you browse Wikipedia AND provides an added layer that enables users to: * Chat/discuss with other users interested in the same topic (Wikipedia article). * Announce/find resources related to a topic (products, books, jobs, anything). * More. I intend to see such a Wikipedia Explorer developed, or personally develop it. Any comments? Advertising products and jobs doesn't sound like something the Wikimedia movement would do, but Wikipedia is under a free license, which means anyone that wants to make such software is welcome to do so (although they can't use Wikipedia in the name without the Wikimedia Foundation's permission, which might not be forthcoming in this case due to the apparent commercial aspect). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment
On Dec 24, 2011 8:55 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the season for unpalatable truths, and not just in Scotland. To an impartial observer this whole exercise has all the earmarks of trying to dig up Nupedia from the grave, give it the kiss of life and do all sorts of hocus pocus and arm waving and say It is alive! It is alive! ... And then see it just fall on its face like the corpse it is. Cue even more bubbling vials with smoke and sparks. Let's try again! This time it will work! -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] Jussie-Ville - terse or blunt is fine IF it is accompanied by a reasoned argument and preferably also a proposed alternative. I find your posts on this thread to be both full of hyperbolic metaphor as well as being unclear. As such I don't think they are helping your argument, however strong you might hold your opinions on the topic. I don't really get the unclear bit. It is extremely unclear to me what connection there is between the AFT and Nupedia. It sounds like meaningless rhetoric to me. Also, please don't send four emails in response to one. It is completely unnecessary and makes it even harder to follow what you are trying to say. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Article Feedback Tool 5 testing deployment
On Dec 24, 2011 12:02 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this thread - but instead your opinion *of what the AFT is*. One possible explanation for this divide is that you're misunderstanding what the tool is meant to do, so I'd like to know what you think it is. So far you've instead said a lot about how much you think it sucks, but nothing on what it is, and without context your posts aren't, honestly, making that much sense. Would you be happy to take this into private e-mail. I don't think any intelligent readers are much impressed by your logic... Given that there seems to be a consensus that your logic doesn't make sense, comments like that make you look, as we British would say, rather silly. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia
Can someone summarise for me the current status of this strike idea? Jimmy held an informal strawpoll on his talk page to see if there was any support for such action, which there was (to my regret - as bad as this act sounds, I really don't think it's a good idea). Presumably there will be a more formal process to decide whether we actually go ahead with it - has that started somewhere? If not, has anyone at least figured out what form that process will take? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia
I would say that technically Jimmy's statement that it was just an informal poll to decide whether it is worth discussing further is binding. Someone acting on that poll alone might get away with it, but it would technically be out-of-process. On Dec 15, 2011 12:53 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:57:51PM +, Fae wrote: On 14 December 2011 22:42, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: No. My opinion was on the straw man as stated, not for some later re-interpretation. Um, You opposed the straw man as stated. If you strike your position, then I'd interpret that as not wanting to stop it. ;-) ( Hmm, only american topic articles? That'd be tricky ) For the record, I have my reservations too. None of the !votes were for a carte blanche to proceed with action. A consensus would have to be gained for any particular proposal. The positions in general seem to be in favor of action, albeit not carte blanche. But like I said, TECHNICALLY, if someone were to (unwisely) proceed to take an action right right now, they'd probably survive running the proverbial gauntlet (RFC) by the skin of their teeth. My interpretation (a subtly different thing from 'opinion' ;-) is that there is sufficient consensus to move as it stands. I agree that that is not quite what this poll says, but it is something one can infer. You might disagree perhaps, but in the end only the post-action RFC would show which of us was actually right in such a case. Let's hope it doesn't quite happen that way. At any rate, it seems wise to discuss the constraints within which en.wikipedia should act. As the discussion progresses, the odds of successful action increase. sincerely, Kim bruning ___ 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] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote: Nothing much went wrong in the planning of this feature, Really?! How is not having realised that this new feature would break 1000's of images and preventing it not something going wrong in the planning? (And yes, I mean break - they displayed correctly before and they don't now, the fact that the EXIF data was corrupt isn't anywhere near as important as how they actually display on the sites that use them.) It was an innocent mistake and these things happen, but you need to accept that it was a mistake and consider what you can do in future to avoid such mistakes happening again. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The Mediawiki 1.18 image rotation bug on Commons and on all Wikimedia projects
On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature? * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously correctly rotated and were messed up by the feature? As far as I understand the issue, and others can jump and correct me if I'm getting it wrong: Technically, nothing was messed up by the feature. Rather, the software previously did not take EXIF rotation into account, and some images had incorrect EXIF rotation information to begin with. Those images are now shown in an incorrect rotation to the user, because the incorrect EXIF rotation info is being evaluated. That's a big technicality. Surely the most important thing is how the images display to users? There were right before and now they aren't. That may not be technically messed up, but it is messed up in reality. It's important to understand this, because it means that those images have been causing problems for re-users all along. If you open those images with modern image editing/viewing software, they will either be automatically rotated, or you'll be prompted by the software whether to apply the rotation noted in the EXIF tag. Indeed, it's good to get these images fixed, but surely it would have been better to fix them rather than just break the workaround that was stopping people noticing they were broken? The situation has been significantly exacerbated by a recent need to purge old thumbnails to free up diskspace. How big a contributing factor has that been? As I understand it, only thumbnails of unused images were purged. People (including me) have been stumbling over incorrect images in articles - have they just been unlucky and the thumbnail happened to expire at the wrong time? So, while the cleanup that's happening now is very frustrating (and I definitely agree we could have anticipated and communicated this better), it's a cleanup that's long overdue. (Either by stripping EXIF info from files altogether, or by ensuring that the rotation of the image matches the one in the metadata.) Is there more that we can do at the present time to help? I think, at the moment, the most useful thing would be to automate finding the broken images (basically, it's all images uploaded before the feature was introduced that have a non-zero EXIF rotation). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Terms of use : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans
On 12 December 2011 20:05, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 12/12/2011 3:02 PM, Andre Engels wrote: I think what he means is that under most European copyright regimes, an author has far-reaching personality rights, which include the right to have the work accredited to them whenever it is republished. The terms of use, in his feeling, hollow out this right by redefining the obligatory credit part of the GFL and CC-BY-SA in such a way that one can mention all authors by doing something that does not include mentioning any of them. That may be the case, but any contributions to the projects is made under an unequivocal grants of permission to redistribute under those terms; the TOS only restate the inevitable, they're not putting forth any new concept there. I believe in certain jurisdictions such terms are automatically null and void. The moral rights can't be waived. I expect that is the cause of the objection. I'm not really sure what alternative we have, though. We switched to the current license terms because we realised requiring re-users to credit every single person that made a non-trivial edit to the page was impractical and hardly any re-users were actually doing that. In the jurisdictions in question, re-users probably have no choice, but I guess that just means it is impractical to re-use Wikipedia legally in those jurisdictions. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and misunderstanding?
On 9 December 2011 11:37, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Not really. The Foundation has plenty of reserves. I believe the figure is that they have 6 months of operating costs in reserve. Whether you regard that as plenty depends on one's personality I would say. I think it's a little more than that because they've been underspending, and that's without making any cuts. If the fundraiser were a complete flop (obviously, it hasn't been, and it was never likely that it would be), I'm sure the WMF could keep Wikipedia running for at least a year without any major problems. We need to continue fundraising if we want to keep doing everything we have planned and if we don't want to run dangerously close to having an empty bank account, so the current fundraiser is certainly very important, but the situation is far from desperate. Everything is going as planned, and it would be extremely reckless to have planned to let things get desperate. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and misunderstanding?
On 7 December 2011 15:28, Woojin Kim kwj2...@gmail.com wrote: Wikimedia Foundation fundraising is now making a misunderstanding about Wikipedia. Some mass media report that WMF and WP is now encountering financial difficulties so WMF urges public donation.[1][2][3] Well, I don't know that is what WMF intended to say, but we need to let the public know facts. If there is misunderstanding, we may need to make a press release. This misunderstanding happens every year. You would think the media would realise that we have a fundraising drive every year at this time... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and misunderstanding?
On 7 December 2011 18:08, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: Well you know; at the start of the drive the foundation is short of cash. Not really. The Foundation has plenty of reserves. The fundraising drives aren't a desparate attempt to avoid going bankrupt. They are a routine, planned way of generating revenue. In the long-run, the Foundation couldn't keep going without fundraising, but that doesn't mean it's in any kind of financial difficulty. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WP being edited by lobbying firm
On 6 December 2011 11:45, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: +1 to Fae This is outrageous. I would say COI notices + Disputed Neutrality notices. Lets not get too dramatic. And anyway; if the purpose of doing such tagging is to punish them for their actions, well, then it's probably not a good thing to do... I agree, let's not over-react. If you're going to go through and find all the articles, how about reading them and making an assessment? It's usually easy enough to spot a whitewashed article, however dark their arts may be. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vital Articles underperforming?
On 4 December 2011 17:49, Edward Buckner peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: Interesting that Theology is not a 'vital article'. As for philosophy, none of the main philosophical schools (nominalism, realism, scepticism, empiricism, rationalism, existentialism etc) are mentioned. Why is this? There are always going to be disagreements over what should constitute a vital article. That isn't important to this discussion. I think most people's top 1000 articles would have a lot of overlap (I expect most of the top 100 VAs would appear at least somewhere in most people's top 1000) and even articles in that overlap aren't particularly good at the moment. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New editor fundraising appeal
On 3 December 2011 21:57, Alasdair w...@ajbpearce.co.uk wrote: Hi Megan, it is interesting to see the new fundraising banners as they are being launched - but it would be good aswell to get more detailed information about how they are performing. Particularly as the fundraising statistics page is down at the moment, it would be great if these updates could also give information about how these new appeals are performing in hard terms and what you are learning about the different choices - at least when they have been up for a few days - (i.e amount donated / amount relative to jimbo / last year / projected revenues). Would it be possible to include such info in future updates of this kind? That would be interesting to read. It would also be great if those chapters that are handling fundraising in their countries could give similar updates. It would be interesting to know if they are using the same banners as the WMF or if they're finding different banners are working better in their country. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Account Creation
On 3 December 2011 22:27, Abbas Mahmood abbas...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello, Last month I was in Qatar and introduced some people to Wikipedia. While they were creating their accounts, some of them had their initial suggested username taken, so they had to repeat it a couple of times until they finally found an available username. One of them had repeated it around 3 or 4 times until he had gotten frustrated. Which is why I'm asking if it's possible to add search type-ahead suggestions for available accounts. How would that work? On what basis would it make suggestions? Would it just tell you what the next available number to add onto the end is? I can't think of any other suggestions it could make... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men
On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all; We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you heard about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011 German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia is a sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are interested on editing nor funding free knowledge. Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors? I think the first step would be to try and figure out if women are visiting the site and not donating or just not visiting at all. You would also want to make sure there really is a significant imbalance and that it's not just that men are more likely to fill out the survey form. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men
On 29 November 2011 22:19, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/11/29 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all; We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you heard about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011 German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia is a sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are interested on editing nor funding free knowledge. Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors? I think the first step would be to try and figure out if women are visiting the site and not donating or just not visiting at all. So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are visiting the site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before saying nonsense about sexism and Wikipedia community. Yes, that is equally true. You would also want to make sure there really is a significant imbalance and that it's not just that men are more likely to fill out the survey form. That affects to all surveys, again. There are ways to limit the effects of a self-selecting sample, but they're not easy to do so it does affect a lot of surveys. Looks like people only care about surveys which say what they want to read. That's statistics for you! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Error message
On 28 November 2011 07:38, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: 2011/11/28 Dirk Franke dirkingofra...@googlemail.com: Seriously: Could we please create something like the Twitter Fail Whale? Maybe a Sad Jimbo? Could help fundraising as well.. Scattered pieces of the puzzle globe. I don't tend to do +1 emails, but I'll make an exception - I love that idea too! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2013 - Request for Bids and Jury nominations
It's too late for this year, since a lot of bids have already started, but in future I would suggest formalising the currently unofficial rotation policy. If everyone knew in advance what continent it was going to be in, you won't have bids that are disadvantaged from the outset because they're on the wrong continent. On Nov 23, 2011 7:07 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi All, Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion, and in no way represents any sentiments of the board. That being said In the past years I have seen a lot of people spend a lot of time on different bids which never made it (even though they were pretty good). Could this be the year that we change this procedure and try to do things differently? I would love to explore how we can avoid a lot of people wasting their energy... How about taking a little time to look at these and other imperfects of the current system before jumping right in, and trying to see if we can improve it? Jan-Bart On 23 nov. 2011, at 19:47, James Forrester wrote: Dear all, It's getting towards the end of November, which means it is time to run the Wikimania bidding process for 2013[0]. Given the traditional absence of a formal system, I'm putting myself forward as Jury[1] co-ordinator - a non-voting person who helps the Jury form and Bids get started up, sets the timeline[2], and hopefully makes sure everything happens smoothly. In this role, I would like to make two requests: Firstly, I'm sure the whole Wikimedia community would love to see as many good bids as possible. There are already a few bids[3] on Meta, but if you or your local community are thinking about putting one in, I'd urge you to get started now - there's not much time left before new bids will not be accepted. Making a good bid for Wikimania can be a lot of work, but we all benefit from there being a strong field of bids. Secondly, I would like to invite volunteers to serve on the Wikimania 2013 jury. There is a list of general requirements on Meta[4], but to summarise: * The Jury will have some from the Wikimedia Foundation's Board and staff alongside the community volunteers; * You can't be on the Jury if you're closely involved in a Bid (it's a conflict of interest); * You need to have some free time during the selection period (January-March); * We want to represent the community across the different projects and activities; and * We of course want a mix of people from a diverse range of backgrounds, sexes, cultures and regions of the world. If you wish to be involved in the Jury, please e-mail me (off-list) at jdforres...@gmail.com - I hope we can announce the Jury in the first week of December, so please contact me as soon as you can. Please also consider passing this message on (and translating it!) for your wiki's community forum for those that don't read these mailing lists. Thank you, and good luck to all Bids. [0] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013 [1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013/Jury [2] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013/Bids/Timeline [3] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013/Bids [4] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_jury Yours, -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ Wikimania-l mailing list wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-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] A proposal for a Wikimedia project that helps people find solutions to their problems
On 20 November 2011 06:22, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote: Step 1: Initially, the wiki's category system takes you to a broad problem type My air conditioner doesn't work. Step 2: On that page, the wiki will say: Check if the air conditioner is plugged in. Does this solve your problem? [Yes] [No] Step 3: If the user clicks [No], the user will be taken to a further page that says: Check if there is too much dust in the air conditioner. Does this solve your problem? [Yes] [No] Step 4: If the user clicks [No], the user will be taken to yet another page that says: Check if the air conditioner is out of refrigerant. Does this solve your problem? [Yes] [No] Step 5: If the user still clicks [No], the user will be taken to another page that says: Contact maintenance personnel. As you can see, such a wiki-based troubleshooting process gradually isolates the user's problem by letting him choose symptoms, leading to increasingly specific problem pages. That doesn't sound much like a wiki to me... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Loriot: Please read carefully what I wrote
On 11 November 2011 18:39, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote: This case has to be discussed IN THE PUBLIC. As https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_%28WMF%29#File:DPAG_2011_55_Herren_im_Bad.jpg gives not sufficient reasons for the decisions and no sufficient background there is NO need that I privately contact WMF's counsel. It's not my duty to contact him but his duty to explain a case with EMINENT implications for the German community. Philippe has already said on that page that he has asked the WMF legal dept to comment there. Please give them a chance. (You may have to wait a while, unfortunately, since I believe the General Counsel is currently away from the office so may be too busy to respond until he gets back.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
On 30 October 2011 17:44, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote: (One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people, *there is no talk page button*. There's a Discussion tab. So when someone says Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help you out! that means. . . nothing.) Perhaps we should apply the Common Name policy to the interface as well as article titles. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.
On 24 October 2011 09:25, Orionist orion@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure a consenus of wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we consult an expert? In a perfect world we'd have a legal department that vets each and every image uploaded to Commons. The thing is, we'd need at least 200 lawyers from all around the world, each one an expert in their country's copyright law, and ready to work overtime. Even then, a legal expert's opinion is no guarantee that a court will go the same way in case of a lawsuit. We wouldn't need a lawyer to look at every case - ones where the author has released it under a free license should be fine, for example. There are experts on international copyright law that could give opinions on a wide range of jurisdictions. While you never know for sure until it has been decided in court, a good lawyer ought to be able to give you an idea of what a court is likely to decide. In some cases, they may have to say I don't know, but I'd much rather have an expert that doesn't know than a bunch of laymen that think they do. ...a deletion discussion among non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law. Neither is the opinion of a legal expert: That's the job of the courts. It's the job of the courts if there is a disagreement. As long as no-one is complaining, we should be fine just trusting a lawyer. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.
2011/10/24 Carl Fürstenberg azat...@gmail.com: It's a difference deciding if uploads of babes with big boobs are stolen from the Internet at large or not, than to figure out if a line drawing from World War II is free or not. Indeed. In legal terminology, the difference is between a matter of fact and a matter of law. Anyone can determine the facts of a case (eg. that the image that someone is claiming is their own work was actually stolen from some website). We need legal experts to determine matters of law. Nobody disputes the facts regarding the image of Mickey Mouse, but we don't know the relevant law. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.
I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole concept of derivative works. The deletion discussion on commons seems to have been closed prematurely. There was hardly any discussion at all. I'm not sure a consenus of wikimedians is the best way to make legal decisions anyway, shouldn't we consult an expert? On Oct 23, 2011 2:01 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the one on the derivative (which extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work)? Read the deletion discussion. I read the deletion discussion before I posted that. It does not address the copyright on the original work (Steamboat Willie), only the copyright on the derivative work. Just found a cite. Nope, the underlying work is still copyright, and a copy of the poster infringes on the underlying work. See Filmvideo Releasing Corp. vs David R. Hastings II: The principal question on this appeal is whether a licensed, derivative, copyrighted work and the underlying copyrighted matter which it incorporates both fall into the public domain where the underlying copyright has been renewed but the derivative copyright has not. We agree with the Ninth Circuit, Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1126-29 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 , 100 S.Ct. 2919, 64 L.Ed.2d 809 (1980), that the answer is No. ___ 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] moderation soft limit
On 21 October 2011 16:02, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote: These discussions have gone in circles for a month now, and it's the same five or ten people (yes, I am again being rhetorical, please don't bother checking that number) arguing past each other and posting their entrenched positions again and again. I'm not sure that's true. There were 1382 posts to foundation-l in September (more than double the average for the few months before). The 7 of us that posted more than 30 times (I was surprised to see myself back on a frequent posters list - I'd been doing so well!) accounted for 474 of those (34% of the total). In August, the top 7 posters (different people) accounted for 158 out of 614 posts (26%). In July, it was 161 out of 489 (33%). (Feel free to check those numbers, I worked them out very quickly and may have made mistakes.) It seems that the distribution of posts between posters was about the same in September as it was in previous months, it's just that everyone was posting more. Perhaps the soft limit should be the greater of 30 and 5% of the total posts so far that month (for most months in the last year, those would be about the same). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] IMDb sued for revealing actresses age
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15360864 I'm not sure of the details of this case, but it looks like it would be worth us keeping an eye on it since it could potentially have repercussions for us. Hopefully, the case will either be thrown out or it will turn out to depend on the existing relationship between the site and the actress (she signed up to something called IMDbPro). I can't really see how anything like this could be successfully brought against us, but you never know. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 10 October 2011 10:19, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: On 10/9/11 11:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Sue Gardner wrote: Please read Ting's note carefully. The Board is asking me to work with the community to develop a solution that meets the original requirements as laid out in its resolution. It is asking me to do something. But it is not asking me to do the specific thing that has been discussed over the past several months, and which the Germans voted against. There is nothing useful to be learned from the Letter to the Community. The problem is that what is usually called the Board on this list is not a single entity. It is actually a group of persons. And right now, the situation is that there is no real agreement within the Board about what to exactly do or not do. Accordingly, it is probably tough for the Board as an entity to issue statements or letters or recommandations without bumping in the fact that they do not have a single common position. Consequently, there is nothing really useful in any statements they can issue. That may well be the case but since it was the WMF board that decided we should have this feature, they need to come to a clear decision on how they want to proceed. If they can't find a solution that satisfies all of them and the decision has to be made by a vote with a slim majority, then so be it. If you are right that the board is split on this (and I expect you are), then what seems to be happening is that they can't make a decision so they are telling the staff to make it for them. That is really not the way a board of trustees should work. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote: The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed. How do you know? The referendum didn't ask whether people were opposed or not. We are not going to revisit the resolution from May, for the moment: we let that resolution stand unchanged. But, we are asking Sue and the staff to continue the conversation with editors, and to find a solution that strikes the best balance between serving our readers, empowering and supporting editors, and dedicating an appropriate amount of effort to the problem. I believe that is possible within the language of the resolution the Board already passed, which leaves open most details of how implementation should be achieved. You haven't commented on the votes that have taken place on the German and French Wikipedias that show a very large majority opposed to the feature on those projects (I believe the German one creates binding policy on that project although the French one doesn't). Your original resolution doesn't go into any details about whether the feature should be forced upon individual projects that clearly don't want it. What are you views, and the views of the board, on that issue? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 9 October 2011 15:12, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: the text of the May resolution to this question is ... and that the feature be visible, clear and usable on all Wikimedia projects for both logged-in and logged-out readers, and on the current board meeting we decided to not ammend the original resolution. So you do intend to force this on projects that don't want it? Do you really think that's going to work? If the WMF picks a fight with the community on something the community feel very strongly about (which this certainly seems to be), the WMF will lose horribly and the fall-out for the whole movement will be very bad indeed. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
