On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've
just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 03:05, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've
just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create.
From what I can tell from the now-closed election page all struck votes have
a standard not qualified template following them, I was figuring on having
it look for that. Your implementation sounds workable as well though and it
really doesnt matter, they would both seem to address the issue and
On 03/05/2011 11:56 PM, geni wrote:
A skin targeted at users with limited bandwidth would probably help.
Yes, that'd be awesome! Also for mobile users with a small bandwidth.
(Did I mention Wikipedia mobile needs a complete re-write?)
--Tobias
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On Sunday, March 6, 2011, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
I know you follow the media with regards to wikipedia to at least some
extent. You must have noticed the WMF is a tiny little organisation
running a great big website story played well. The foundation was
still trying to play that card
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 March 2011 10:14, Pavel Richter pavel.rich...@wikimedia.de wrote:
But who says that the sole purpose of the WMF is to keep Wikimedia wikis
running?
I don't think many people would say that's the sole purpose of
On 7 March 2011 11:44, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 March 2011 10:14, Pavel Richter pavel.rich...@wikimedia.de wrote:
But who says that the sole purpose of the WMF is to keep Wikimedia wikis
running?
Hoi,
So far the balance has been seriously wrong. Because of the underinvestment
many of our Wikipedias are not doing as well as they should. There are for
instance technical solutions to give many of the Indian language Wikipedias
the traffic back they lost.
As this is not considered as a
On 05/03/11 14:30, David Gerard wrote:
On 5 March 2011 14:19, Neil Harrisn...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
And also, WMF should make it possible to accept continuing donations as
a subscription on a monthly basis.
Even better, they should do this already!
Am 07.03.11 13:56, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Because of the underinvestment many of our Wikipedias are not doing
as well as they should. There are for instance technical solutions to
give many of the Indian language Wikipedias the traffic back they
lost.
The notion that we are raising more
Andrew Garrett writes:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still small and running on a shoestring
budget. The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds
of millions to billions of dollars.
This point can't be
On 7 March 2011 17:02, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett writes:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still small and running on a shoestring
budget. The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds
of
On Mar 7, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett writes:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still small and running on a shoestring
budget. The websites that we compete with run budgets in the
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 9:13 AM, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett writes:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still small and running on a shoestring
budget. The websites that we compete with run budgets in the
On 7 March 2011 16:02, Juergen Fenn juergen.f...@gmx.de wrote:
Well, I think there is no right measure for a fundraiser. But I would
like to return to the point Tobias raised in the first place: Fundraiser
marketing is growing more aggressive year by year. E.g., this time it
was not possible
On 03/07/2011 06:08 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Indeed. This thread appears to have been an exercise in:
[a whole lot of insults]
I don't know if you're directing this at me, but if you are, I seriously
would be interested why you think that I'm trolling or assuming bad faith.
To clarify: I
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Juergen Fenn juergen.f...@gmx.de wrote:
this time it
was not possible to switch the banners off, even you were logged in as a
user.
Juergen,
It's disturbing to hear you say that: every banner run by WMF (and, i
believe, every banner run by a chapter as
On 7 March 2011 17:19, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't know if you're directing this at me, but if you are, I seriously
would be interested why you think that I'm trolling or assuming bad faith.
I'm not, several others in this group of threads are.
The
On 7 March 2011 17:29, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Juergen Fenn juergen.f...@gmx.de wrote:
this time it
was not possible to switch the banners off, even you were logged in as a
user.
It's disturbing to hear you say that: every banner run
On 03/07/2011 06:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Indeed. Juergen, are you saying the X wasn't present, or that it
didn't work for you? It seemed to for everyone else that tried it.
There were some reports that banners came back after a short while,
probably because of client-side cookie problems.
Am 07.03.11 18:41, schrieb church.of.emacs.ml:
On 03/07/2011 06:30 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Indeed. Juergen, are you saying the X wasn't present, or that it
didn't work for you? It seemed to for everyone else that tried it.
There were some reports that banners came back after a short while,
I totally agree with Gerard. And what Gerard says is just a small example.
I think we are raising much less funds than what we need.
But this is only one half of the problem.
The other half is that we are spending much less than what we raise:
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to alert everyone that there is a new page on Meta related to
fellowships at the Wikimedia Foundation,[1] a program that originally began
in September 2010.[2]
Other than just a public description of the program and the fellows past and
present, we're starting up an
On 7 March 2011 18:19, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps there is something I don't understand. It seems strange to me that
having 24M$ of current assets we don't have any financial income but 0,5M$
bank fees.
AIUI, it was long a goal for the foundation *not* to be living hand to
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Original Message
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sun, March 6, 2011 3:54:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2006-2011:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:18 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Another solution, which might be easier to implement, is for a bot to
check every contributor to the voting pages for compliance, and notify
any contributor who doesn't have a cross-linked account.
Or we could just use
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
Or we could just use the SecurePoll extension that is used for board
elections and enwiki ArbCom elections. The extension would bar people
who did not meet the requirements from voting at all.
Can we keep the election
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
Can we keep the election open while using the SecurePoll?
I'm not sure, but do we need to keep it open? IIRC, there was some
opposition to using open voting during this last election.
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
On 03/07/11 11:27 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Birgitte SBbirgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Original Message
From: Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sun, March 6, 2011 3:54:11 AM
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Translation is an important problem, and it is also key to making
material available in less developed languages. Linked with moral rights
it gives too much leeway to those who would claim that a given
translation is
Sending on behalf of Danese...
Hello,
Yes, the rumors are true! Today I am pleased to announce that after more
than a year away, Brion Vibber will be returning as a full-time employee of
Wikimedia Foundation on March 31, 2011. The public posting is available
This really is fantastic news - welcome back Brion!
On 7 March 2011 23:27, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sending on behalf of Danese...
Hello,
Yes, the rumors are true! Today I am pleased to announce that after more
than a year away, Brion Vibber will be returning as a full-time
Andrew Garrett wrote:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still small and running on a shoestring
budget. The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds
of millions to billions of dollars.
Which websites would those
On 8 March 2011 00:03, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett wrote:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still small and running on a shoestring
budget. The websites that we compete with run budgets in the hundreds
of
Wow, great news!
Lead Architect for the next generation MediaWiki platform
I'd really like to hear more about that. Did I miss something or is this
a new project? :-)
--Tobias
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
foundation-l
Hello Everyone,
It is with great pleasure that I would like to inform you that we are in
the process of the launching Wikipedia's second editor survey. The
survey is a redo of the UNU-Merit Survey that the foundation had
conducted last year. The survey covers a variety of topics, but its
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 6 March 2011 23:54, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
So... that's a no? There's no record of who wrote what? I think people in
the community are interested to know how much of the strategic plan came
from various stakeholders, both the ideas and the actual pieces of
On 8 March 2011 00:23, church.of.emacs.ml church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Wow, great news!
Lead Architect for the next generation MediaWiki platform
I'd really like to hear more about that. Did I miss something or is this
a new project? :-)
--Tobias
I'm quite interested in
2011/3/4 church.of.emacs.ml church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com:
In that regard, I believe we have to think about how we can ensure that
we're being friendly and respectful towards our readers and donors,
raise enough money, define what 'enough money' is and how all that
affects our mission.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 18:11, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 March 2011 00:03, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Andrew Garrett wrote:
We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
hesitate to say that we're still small and running on a shoestring
The point is that we seem to be
raising more money than we need, which is arguably unfair to donors,
then not spending it in ways that increase quality or help the
volunteers, which is arguably unfair to us. That's causing bad
feeling. Whether it's fair or not is beside the point. The bad
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 21:54, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The point is that we seem to be
raising more money than we need, which is arguably unfair to donors,
then not spending it in ways that increase quality or help the
volunteers, which is arguably unfair to us. That's causing
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 21:54, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The point is that we seem to be
raising more money than we need, which is arguably unfair to donors,
then not spending it in ways that increase quality or help the
volunteers, which is arguably unfair to us. That's
On 8 March 2011 03:54, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
My own feeling is that the amount of money is so small, as is the staff,
and special projects, in relationship to potential needs that I never
thought of having a bad feeling, at least not about that.
I have the same
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and databases
such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit into our
budget.
That would be amazing. There was a company that offered 100 accounts
to a
A pleasure to have him back.
--
~Keegan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Welcome back, Brion!
Imho there is no one better suited forthe job than you!
Teun
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sending on behalf of Danese...
Hello,
Yes, the rumors are true! Today I am pleased to announce that after more
than a year away,
Awesome news!
Welcome back Brion (well you never really left in spirit :)
Jan-Bart de Vreede
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:27 AM, Jay Walsh wrote:
Sending on behalf of Danese...
Hello,
Yes, the rumors are true! Today I am pleased to announce that after more
than a year away, Brion Vibber
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On the target itself, I want to note that the strategic plan numbers
aren't set in stone. The financial targets for the 2011-12 fiscal year
are defined in the annual plan process, which just kicked off. This
plan, when
49 matches
Mail list logo
