I am not sure if your wording implies that I am being excessively negative
or skeptical. But yes, I very definitely think it should be resisted at
every stage of implementation. What else can we do, if the people who
should be providing services to us, try to run things for us. the community
On 27 August 2011 09:04, dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 2011 11:12am, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular
commons categories, but of special ones
It is absolutely not part of the resolution, nor is it in the design plans
that I've seen. My understanding is that it works like current
categorization, in that anyone can participate.
pb
___
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x
2011/8/11 Jimmy Walesjwa...@wikia-inc.com
On 8/10/11 8:51 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being
centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe
will make chapters ineffective.
Chapters are not being centralized.
For your information
The Brazilian community is offering WMF a letter of agreement, which was
collaboratively written.
After the Brazilian participants shared their experience on what
happened in Haifa, the whole community had one week to discuss and edit
the content, which is now available on
Uh did I miss something?
2. Wikimedia Foundation will set up an office in Brazil in order to
stimulate the development of projects to increase the penetration of
Wikipedia in Brazil. This process was already launched with the
search for locations, hiring lawyers and the search for a
On 27 August 2011 20:20, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
Uh did I miss something?
2. Wikimedia Foundation will set up an office in Brazil in order to
stimulate the development of projects to increase the penetration of
Wikipedia in Brazil. This process was already launched with
Yes, Dan
It was announced in WMF July Report [1] (last point in the Brazil
Catalyst section).
[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_July_2011#Brazil_Catalyst
Castelo
[[:m:User:Castelobranco]]
Wikimedia Brasil
Em 27/08/2011 16:20, Dan Rosenthal escreveu:
Uh did I
Ah, ok this is a recent thing then.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:49 PM, CasteloBranco
michelcastelobra...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, Dan
It was announced in WMF July Report [1] (last point in the Brazil
Catalyst section).
[1]
On 27 August 2011 20:52, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, ok this is a recent thing then.
Not really. It's mentioned on page 9 of the strategic plan:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/WMF_StrategicPlan2011_spreads.pdf
The mention in the July report is just saying
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 August 2011 09:04, dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 2011 11:12am, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
This labeling is proposed to be done on the
On 26 August 2011 02:15, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
make it plainer, that people who find Wikipedia articles appropriate
for advocating their religious beliefs may use the content for that
purpose, to that the WMF should find some universally acceptable sets
of spiritual
On 26 August 2011 12:35, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
This implies that the proposed image hiding feature is a less repressive
form of censorship. I do not see the proposed feature as censorship - all
the images remain on the site. Nothing is removed. Nothing is suppressed.
On 08/26/11 2:26 PM, Nathan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijklodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Jimmy,
There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
take on this, so I'll
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
If the question is one of minimum standards of accountability the
WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it
requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within
particular
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com:
I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
locally.
Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the plan was,
but then Ting clarified that no
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi Jimmy,
There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a
I extended my Wikimania talk and, after a lot of technical problems,
I've finally managed to create videos from the presentations.
I uploaded the first couple of videos. Not all of them are
interesting, here are the notes for those who are interested just in
the substance:
* Missing Wikipedias
I find this all very sad. Who are the Brazilian volunteers, and how
effectively do they represent the views of those Brazilians who are
truly interested in Wikipedia in their country. The simple fact is that
an agreement entered into by an ad hoc group binds no-one except the
individuals that
On 08/27/11 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménardnotafi...@gmail.com:
I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
locally.
Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the
On 08/27/11 4:34 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when
they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and
organization second. But the WMF
On 28 August 2011 01:19, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
If Sue and Ting are so much at odds, maybe the rest of us should duck.
I think it was a misunderstanding on Sue's part, rather than any
actual disagreement.
___
foundation-l mailing
The letter was written collaboratively and announced in IRC, village
pump, mailing list, facebook, twitter, ... so i think it does represent
the views of all Brazilians who are interested on it. We do know a legal
structure is now essential, and we are developing the legal structure
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 2:29 AM, CasteloBranco
michelcastelobra...@gmail.com wrote:
The letter was written collaboratively and announced in IRC, village
pump, mailing list, facebook, twitter, ... so i think it does represent
the views of all Brazilians who are interested on it. We do know a
I'm happy to hear this. As a member of the Chapters Committee, I look
forward to being helpful.
Ray
On 08/27/11 5:29 PM, CasteloBranco wrote:
The letter was written collaboratively and announced in IRC, village
pump, mailing list, facebook, twitter, ... so i think it does represent
the
25 matches
Mail list logo
