On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/03/2011, at 10:15, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
All of this makes for one of the stronger arguments for a more
decentralized
office structure at this point, in my opinion. (Lightly echoing what Liam
said.)
Until recently, the foundation has been increasing its staff by hiring
the best person immediately available, rather than a person good
enough to do the necessary job. I''ve seen this sort of situation
numerous times in my library career, and dealing with it in this way
is not good practice.
On 9 March 2011 23:02, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Until recently, the foundation has been increasing its staff by hiring
the best person immediately available, rather than a person good
enough to do the necessary job.
Citation needed.
1. keep the job unfilled , and search
On 3/9/2011 3:09 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 9 March 2011 23:02, David Goodmandgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Until recently, the foundation has been increasing its staff by hiring
the best person immediately available, rather than a person good
enough to do the necessary job.
Citation needed.
It
On 9 March 2011 23:02, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Until recently, the foundation has been increasing its staff by hiring
the best person immediately available, rather than a person good
enough to do the necessary job.
I don't think that's true, at least not for the past couple of
-- On Wed, 9/3/11, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
The nearest university to me will give access to databases
for $150 a
year, but they make non-students and staff travel to the
university
itself to do it; no logging in from home, and that turns
into a
serious hassle over time
No, I do not think the situation was solved two years ago. Some of the
topics discussed here over the last year have indicated some of the
continuing problems.
The attitude that the volunteers are here only to write articles, and
should leave the general concerns of the site to the
For those who have experienced it, the availability of immediate
access to a very wide range of resources is an incredible advantage.
The same is true for the availability of print resources.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
-- On Wed, 9/3/11, SlimVirgin
No, I do not think the situation was solved two years ago. Some of the
topics discussed here over the last year have indicated some of the
continuing problems.
The attitude that the volunteers are here only to write articles, and
should leave the general concerns of the site to the
On 3/5/11 7:48 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
While most donations come from people outside the Wikimedia (editing)
community, the people within the community often feel that the very small
staff of the past was more productive, more agile, less bloated, and overall
more efficient than the larger staff
--- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
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.
I
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 8 March 2011 13:24, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 3/5/11 7:48 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
While most donations come from people outside the Wikimedia (editing)
community, the people within the community often feel that the very small
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and
databases
such
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and
databases
such as
Am 08.03.11 20:20, schrieb phoebe ayers:
Most (all?) university libraries sign contracts with database/journal
vendors restricting access to only faculty/staff/students at the
university.
This may hold true for the U.S., but as far as Europe is concerned the
situation is different in some
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Juergen Fenn juergen.f...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 08.03.11 20:20, schrieb phoebe ayers:
Most (all?) university libraries sign contracts with database/journal
vendors restricting access to only faculty/staff/students at the
university.
This may hold true for the
On 8 March 2011 19:20, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Most (all?) university libraries sign contracts with database/journal
vendors restricting access to only faculty/staff/students at the
university. The library pays according to how many people that is.
Giving access to others is
Am 08.03.11 21:19, schrieb phoebe ayers:
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the German chapter of Wikimedia has
just negotiated the first settlement for a premium database provider in
chemistry, see
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kurier#Chemie_eLitstip_per_Codc.21.
There are plans
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:20 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't mean to derail this thread off-topic ... but I'm a Wikipedian,
I can't help myself :)
Most (all?) university libraries sign contracts with database/journal
vendors restricting access to only
- Original Message
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Mon, March 7, 2011 10:03:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser
Why is there a feeling
Birgitte SB wrote:
But seriously it's 2011, can we be stop discussing the move to SF.
Is anyone seriously complaining about funds from the 2006 fundraiser?
Sure, in a sense, what's done is done. However, it has (or had) little to do
with the relocation costs. You have to maintain salaries, buy
As Wikimedia's paid staff continues to grow, the decision to move to San
Francisco (and its consequences) actually gets amplified, doesn't it? It
would only be offset by the benefits that Wikimedia gets for being in that
particular location (partnerships with other San Francisco-based
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Arthur Richards aricha...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As Wikimedia's paid staff continues to grow, the decision to move to San
Francisco (and its consequences) actually gets amplified, doesn't it? It
would only be offset by the benefits that Wikimedia gets for being in
Yes, that was what we were said several years ago
and I think now there's ample evidence to show it was true, look at
all the partnerships and support we got
I presume you meant that sarcastically?
I don't know much about any official partnerships the Foundation has,
but a non-trivial
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Arthur Richards aricha...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, that was what we were said several years ago
and I think now there's ample evidence to show it was true, look at
all the partnerships and support we got
I presume you meant that sarcastically?
I don't know
* Reddit ... a project with values similar to ours
* Google ... a project with values similar to ours
* OWA ?¿
* CivicCRM ... this one offers services to help internal management
* Creative Commons ok, finally one project with similar values than
ours: free content
Now, out of the
On 3/8/2011 4:24 PM, Pedro Sanchez wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Arthur Richardsaricha...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
I don't know much about any official partnerships the Foundation has,
but a non-trivial amount of in-person collaboration and information
sharing goes on on a regular
On 9 March 2011 00:24, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for your enlightening response.
* Reddit ... a project with values similar to ours
* Google ... a project with values similar to ours
* OWA ?¿
* CivicCRM ... this one offers services to help internal management
*
On 09/03/2011, at 10:15, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
All of this makes for one of the stronger arguments for a more decentralized
office structure at this point, in my opinion. (Lightly echoing what Liam
said.)
MZMcBride
That's actually not what I said, or at least not what I meant
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:50, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
I guess I would
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:50, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
--- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
I guess I
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
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,
...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
AANLkTim-fcUyLt4GNfxJW0nLE84=f59i8NjjB25bNt=6...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hoi,
So far the balance
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
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
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
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
On 6 March 2011 04:03, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
The attraction of Wikipedia -- to editors, readers, and donors -- was
that it was run on a shoestring by a bunch of volunteers, for the
benefit of other people.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 03:12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 March 2011 04:03, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
The attraction of Wikipedia -- to editors, readers, and donors -- was
that it was run on a
On 6 March 2011 09:12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. That claim's a definite citation needed.
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.
Am 05.03.2011 13:48, schrieb MZMcBride:
church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise
funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from
WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-)
There's a fairly easy solution: raise less
Am 06.03.11 11:14, schrieb Pavel Richter:
But who says that the sole purpose of the WMF is to keep Wikimedia wikis
running? Wikipedia is much more than just a website where people get
information fast and for free. Wikipedia is a cultural phenomenon and
spearhead of a large movement for
Hello,
2011/3/6 geni geni...@gmail.com:
...
A skin targeted at users with limited bandwidth would probably help.
That's a top priority for me.
Something like printable=yes with the pics replaced by links (is
there a way to detect low bandwidth connections and serve that
automatically?)
On 6 March 2011 09:48, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 March 2011 09:12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. That claim's a definite citation needed.
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
On 03/05/2011 06:28 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
So that we're not hypothesizing, I'll say it: I sincerely regret the way I
put that. I was attempting to say that the choices that we make have real
world consequences. I used a terrible example to point that out.
Thanks Philippe, I
I still think it was a bad thing that the fundraiser crew decided to use
Sue Gardner director of Wikipedia in the banners because it raised more
money... A very bad thing because everybody knows here that she isn't the
director for Wikipedia.
___
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 1:30 AM, church.of.emacs.ml church.of.emacs.ml@
googlemail.com wrote:
However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise
funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from
WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-)
I promise that we
On 03/05/2011 08:37 PM, Zack Exley wrote:
I promise that we kept the annoyance of the fundraiser almost to a minimum
given the amount of money we had to raise.
we had to raise sounds absolute, but it is relative to a self-set
(some would say arbitrary) fundraising goal. This year the goal was
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:31 PM, church.of.emacs.ml church.of.emacs.ml@
googlemail.com wrote:
Sure. I'd love to get opinions from more people (perhaps at Wikimania,
too?)
The (editing) community should to be comfortable with Wikimedia raising
funds, and if it isn't, we need to find ways so
Sebastian Moleski wrote:
I would venture that growth, or rather size, is defined by what the
Foundation wants to accomplish and what resources are needed for that. Would
it be inherently wrong if, for example, WMF were an organization with a
headcount of 10,000 and a budget of a billion
On 5 March 2011 21:15, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Defined by what the Foundation wants to accomplish? I think you've
highlighted the problem pretty well, right there.
Then please answer my question, and give your plan, working backward
from the mission statement to the necessary
Hoi,
As far as I am concerned, there are so many things we could do if we had the
capacity that would still only be about enabling our communities to write
their Wikipedia in their language. There are development projects that will
not benefit all our projects.
We are still at a stage where there
On 03/05/2011 09:38 PM, Sebastian Moleski wrote:
In terms of annoyance, I think we all need to be careful not to
substitute our own judgment for that of others. Just because you or I
find banners annoying, it's a far jump to argue that our readers in
general also found them annoying. In fact,
David Gerard wrote:
On 5 March 2011 21:15, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Defined by what the Foundation wants to accomplish? I think you've
highlighted the problem pretty well, right there.
Then please answer my question, and give your plan, working backward
from the mission
On 5 March 2011 20:51, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2011 20:38, Sebastian Moleski i...@sebmol.me wrote:
the mission, e.g. allow every human to freely share in
the sum of all knowledge?
Indeed. Although it's quite possible Tobias is correct and WMF can
achieve the
On 5 March 2011 23:06, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which
included huge business planning components for exactly this conversation
Yes, you'd think lots of smart people had not only thought about this
On 5 March 2011 23:16, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2011 23:06, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which
included huge business planning components for exactly this conversation
Yes, you'd
On 5 March 2011 23:06, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which
included huge business planning components for exactly this conversation
Which page of the document covers why the foundation needs 188
employees in
On 03/06/2011 12:06 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which
included huge business planning components for exactly this
conversation
There are numbers for estimated expenses: $51M for 2014/2015
I sincerely doubt that poverty is anyones attraction to wikipedia.
--
Dan Rosenthal
Sent from my iPhone. My apologies for any brevity.
On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 06:48, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
church.of.emacs.ml
Well, it is nice that our editors are not getting paid $100,000 a year to
write from the perspective of whoever is paying them. There is a
connection between well-paid writing and editing and control of content.
Wealthy, or powerful, people don't usually put out big money for the
publishing of
Hi,
perhaps now that most of the fundraising stress is over, we can discuss
the direction WMF should be taking in terms of raising funds. While I'm
glad that WMF and most chapters reached or exceeded their fundraising
goals, I feel qualmishly about where we're heading.
In order to meet a very
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:50 AM, church.of.emacs.ml church.of.emacs.ml@
googlemail.com wrote:
I found that comment to be very disturbing. It makes the Wikimedia staff
look like it is mostly concerned with keeping their jobs,[4] instead of
making Wikimedia's mission succeed. Money is not
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think he'd tell you he regrets the way he put that. Our jobs don't
matter
at all if they're not significantly helping the movement. And I know he
feels that way too.
So that we're not hypothesizing, I'll say it: I
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Wikimedia movement doesn’t owe you a job; You are here to serve the
Wikimedia movement; If you want a job, start looking. I'm very serious
about that.
___
foundation-l
88 matches
Mail list logo
