Re: [Foundation-l] WP edit/access blocking in the UK - statement from the WMF
geni wrote: 2008/12/8 Florence Devouard [EMAIL PROTECTED]: A link http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Virgin_Killer Ant More up to date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_articles If the current rate continued we would be looking at close on half a million views of that article today. A sudden thought... and what if the whole story had been entirely made up ? As in Amazon staff member made the complain to the UK foundation in hope it would give a kick to the album sale ? Right, I am dreaming, but I like the what ifs :-) I would be curious to know sales for that album in dec 08 compared to other months. My brother also was a big fan of scorpions (and I must confess it was the least bad of all heavy metal groups he was listening to), and I regret we dumped all these old albums. It feels like it could become a collector... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] and what if...
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: Florence Devouard wrote: Birgitte SB wrote: I am strongly against collaborating with Westernish governments to help make their censorship more effective. I personally don't think we should help anyone make their censorship more effective. But if we are to decide we would rather have citizens under censorship able to participate with censorship rather than not participate at all, we should not discriminate with which governments we are willing to help. Personally I don't get censorship, nor the complacency Europeans generally have about living under it. I don't get it but I can recognize that many other people see it differently and may want to support censorship. But we can't pick and choose which government's censorship we will support. This is an international organization and nothing in mission expresses support for western mores over others. Selectively helping some governments censor would be a disastrous move for WMF to make. Birgitte SB Hello I did not mean to suggest we should collaborate with whatever government. I meant that we could maybe learnt from what happenned and think about scenarios for different futures, and prepare ourselves for these different futures. Ant To say again what I already noted in another posting but in other words; I really think planning like this should be done at board level and in private, not at the mailing list which any troll can participate in and get silly ideas from. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen P.S. Yes I realize I am here advocating lack of transparency, but this is just one of those legitimate cases where such lack of transparency is not merely excusable, but a sine qua non. It is not only a question of lack of transparency Jussi (though I fully understand your point about the trolls). There are issues which goes much beyond of the board of WMF. A long time ago, many years, I noted that everything global was decided at the english wikipedia level, and then applied in other languages. And I remember I fought for the right of all languages to participate into the decision making at the global level. What you advocate is that every decision at the global level be now restricted to the board of WMF, and in private on top. In short, you advocate a nice top down organization, whilst the organization itself is not willing to take on that role. That's disappointing. I do not think it will happen. I think what will happen is that either issues will not be dealt with, or that issues will be dealt with at the local level, without much learning and much global understanding. But well, fine. Maybe unavoidadable. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: October 2008
Sue Gardner wrote: Hey folks, Here is the RTTB for October. November will follow soon :-) Enjoy! Sue Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Covering: October 2008 Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation Prepared for: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees MY CURRENT PRIORITIES 1. Planning for Bangalore and Davos trips 2. Finalization of staff goals and performance check-ins 3. Planning for development of the strategic plan 4. Ongoing major donor solicitation and stewardship, foundation proposal follow-up 5. Bits and pieces (all-staff meeting, CPO recruitment, Wikimania 2008 postmortem, office space revamp, Board Nominating Committee, etc.) THIS PAST MONTH BOARD MEETING The Board met the first weekend of October at the WMF offices in San Francisco, with all Board members in attendance. During the meeting, the Board reviewed and approved the Gift Policy and Privacy Policy. As always, these are posted at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies Treasurer Stuart West presented an update on the audit, informing the Board that the audit is progressing much more quickly than last year, and that the Board will receive the financial statements within a few weeks. Vice-Chair Jan-Bart de Vreede made a presentation on Open Standards and a discussion was held about file formats. Discussions were also held about Advisory Board and Board development, and the formation of sub-national chapters. Erik Moeller gave updates and answered questions regarding Wikimedia's technology priorities, and the online fundraiser. Minutes from the July meeting were approved. The minutes of the October meeting will be approved and published following the next board meeting, in January. FUNDRAISING AND GRANTS Extensive work was done by all departments on fine-tuning the various components of the Annual Campaign in preparation for the launch the first week of November: * Further testing and development of the CiviCRM donor database, including e-mail capabilities – for the first time, we've got automated e-mail thank yous set up for all donors * Development of campaign management tools for sitenotice deployment, such as scheduling and weighting of different sitenotices * Lining up external support by design and PR firms; producing the first sitenotices; developing audio PSAs * Identifying core messages that need to be translated and coordinating volunteer translations * Streamlining and documenting all fundraising related procedures, such as donor thank-yous * Developing a fundraising agreement between WMF and the chapters which want to participate in the online fundraiser * Investigating historical PayPal data that hasn't been imported into the database * Inviting past $1000+ donors to make leadership gifts prior to the beginning of the 2008 fundraiser. For the first time, the online fundraiser is led and coordinated by a dedicated staff member, Rand Montoya. We followed up on leads from the Funders' Briefings in September, including people who could not attend the briefings. There were 935 donations made in the month of October for a total of USD 65,503.32 OUTREACH Frank Schulenburg worked with the Argentinian chapter to finalize plans for the first Wikipedia Academy in Buenos Aires, to be held in early November. Frank also spoke at the FSCONS conference in Gothenburg, Sweden and supported Wikimedia Germany's Zedler Medal article writing award as well as the Quadriga Award ceremony. Frank also participated in a dedicated meeting/conference where the current state of Wikimedia was discussed among Wikipedians and academics:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Siggen Sue spoke at conferences in Florida and Germany, and met with the Knight Foundation in Florida. SOS Children UK, in coordination with the Wikimedia Foundation, released a complete 2008/9 revision of the Wikipedia Selection for Schools, which is perhaps the most successful checked content project derived from the English Wikipedia.http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/2008-9_Selection_for_Schools TECHNOLOGY We welcomed two additions to the technical staff: Trevor Parscal, who will work as a software developer, and Ariel Glenn, who will do development work but also help with technical support for the San Francisco office. Thanks to a volunteer, Robert Stojnic, and the deployment of new search servers, we've enabled new search features, limited to the English Wikipedia for now:http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2008-October/040022.html We've also enabled the PediaPress technology on all Wikibooks wikis. It allows wiki-to-PDF export, wiki-to-ODT export, and print-on-demand delivery of collections of pages. Pending further review, usability and scalability improvements, we hope to deploy it on Wikipedia and our other projects soon. This work is
[Foundation-l] Happy New Year
May it bring each of you happiness. Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Yes we can (was Re: Happy New Year)
Florence Devouard wrote: May it bring each of you happiness. Ant Lodewijk pointed out (with reason) that I was much shorter this year than last year. I'd like to propose you a small and easy game. New year, yet another year... you certainly do not have a LOT of time. But you certainly have ONE minute. Without giving it long thinking, drop there the FIRST wish that comes to your mind for year 2009 regarding our projects and helping the world to be a more informed/educated place. Rule: no more than two sentences http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wishes_2009 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Michael Snow wrote: I've been assembling my notes from last week's board meeting to pass along. The first set of items I have to report is business from the chapters committee. All of these resolutions have been posted on the foundation website. We approved two new chapters, and there's something special about each of the two. Wikimedia New York City is special because it's the first one recognized under the new sub-national chapter guidelines. And Wikimedia UK is special because it's the second version of that chapter. For the sake of formality - and nobody does formality better than the British, which has been part of the difficulty - we revoked the recognition of the first one, which is dissolved or in the process of dissolving. Anyway, welcome to both of the new chapters! Also, two resolutions relating to the chapters committee's membership and procedures were approved. One recognizes the current members and the other allows the committee to determine its own membership in the future. This allows them to keep their work going without waiting for the board to pass a resolution (the board reserves the ability to appoint and remove members and will still be informed of changes). --Michael Snow Hello, For the sake of clarity, I'd like to ask that a mean is given to recognize that a sub-chapter is a sub-chapter rather than a chapter. If not in the name that we use within ourselves, at least on meta and internal pages. For now, I guess everyone from the house can guess that it is a subchapter, but when we have 50 chapters and 50 sub-chapters, it may not be so easy to deal with. For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been mandatory that names used be of the type Wikimedia + Country + blabla). Beyond this, could it be possible that the difference between a chapter and a sub chapter be published ? I know some guidelines circulated internally, but I do believe it should not only be internal. I went to the resolution authorizing its recognition as a sub-chapter (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City) and I found reference to Wikimedia Foundation: A Framework for Encouraging the Development of Sub-National Chapters, but no idea where to find this document. I thought I could click on the only link provided on the resolution (local chapters), but this one leads to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters, which does not mention sub chapters, nor Wikimedia NYC, nor any framework for blablasubchapters. So, in effect, the resolution does not tell me anything beyond the fact that there seems to be sub-chapters and chapters. If there is a difference, what is it ? Both for external world and for us folks, it is important to understand the relationships existing organisations. Right now, the information is not provided. Could someone from the Foundation fix that and add the necessary information, eg * the text of the framework on wmf site * the link from the resolution to the framework page * an update of the chapter list on wmf site, to add the subchapters category OR the creation of a second list * on meta, subchapters must be categorized as subchapters, not chapters Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Michael Snow wrote: Florence Devouard wrote: For example, on meta, Wikimedia NYC is listed as chapters, not subchapters. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_York_City. And the name does not clarify the difference either (it could have been mandatory that names used be of the type Wikimedia + Country + blabla). It is a chapter. ... http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City So... the resolution stating that The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a Sub-National Chapter should actually be read as The Board of Trustees officially recognizes Wikimedia NYC as a Chapter ? J The division indicated by the sub in sub-national chapters is in the nation, not necessarily in the chapter. There is no chapter for Wikimedia NYC to be a subchapter of. People are welcome to use Wikimedia US-NYC (or NYC-US, it doesn't matter to me) where the designation of sub-national chapter is important, though. I know some guidelines circulated internally, but I do believe it should not only be internal. I went to the resolution authorizing its recognition as a sub-chapter (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_New_York_City) and I found reference to Wikimedia Foundation: A Framework for Encouraging the Development of Sub-National Chapters, but no idea where to find this document. I believe I shared the FAQ on this list earlier, but I've taken a copy and put it on Meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters okay, I added the link to the wmf:local chapter page, so that everyone navigating from the resolution page to the local chapter page, can find the meta page. Ant --Michael Snow ___ 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 (chapters)
I was wondering myself. I thought this information would be in the FAQ, but it is not. Two questions. First, the annual meeting. We hold an annual meeting between all chapters and WMF. Already, because of the number of chapters, it is recommanded that only one representant of all chapters come to the meeting. Needless to say, this limitation is going to largely damage the ability of this meeting to build anything. Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ? If that's the case, I suspect that we will soon have to abandon this annual meeting altogether, and will have to replace it by region meetings. Second, elections to board of trustees of WMF. WMF has given the opportunity to chapters to elect two members to the board. However, it is not clear to me if subchapters will be included or not. Has this been decided ? Or will chapters be offered the opportunity to decide that by themselves ? Ant Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, Is it like in Animal farm that all countries are equal but some are more equal then others? By calling NY a sub chapter, it is inherent that there is room for a USA chapter. Each chapter has one vote as I understand it or will each subchapter have one as well ?? Originally the notion of a chapter was very much that it was along the lines of legislatures. This no longer seems to be relevant or am I missing something? Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de Gerard Meijssen schrieb: Hoi, So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not that strong either, we could have a Moscow sub chapter or one for Bombay. Thanks, GerardM Yes, having a New York chapter pretty ruled out the possibility of establishing a USA chapter. But then, the USA chapter was discussed for quite long time and it is quite unprobably that it would become true in the near future. There are also suggestions that the WM-NYC could serve as a seed and gradually expand its covering area at sometime to become a WM-USA. But that's all speculations. We will see how everything develops. Again, from the view of fundation WM-NYC is not a sub chapter but a wholevalue chapter. Its area doesn't covers a nation, but that doesn't make it less or more than the chapters whose area cover a country. And sub-national or cross-national chapters also may be established somewhere else than USA, right. As far as I know, there are already two organizations in the Netherlands, why would you want to create an Amsterdam chapter and what is the beneficial of it? Or is the question just theoretical? Greetings Ting ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Guillaume Paumier wrote: Hello, [it might be useful to move this topic to a dedicated thread if it goes on] On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: We hold an annual meeting between all chapters and WMF. Already, because of the number of chapters, it is recommanded that only one representant of all chapters come to the meeting. Needless to say, this limitation is going to largely damage the ability of this meeting to build anything. May I ask some arguments to support this statement? Sorry. There are two arguments in my sentence. Which one do you want support for ? The argument that there will be only one representant is something I think I read that in one of your document. I may be wrong. I can look for the information if necessary. But I understood number of representants will be strongly limited. Or the fact one representant will damage the ability of the meeting to build anything ? Well, yeah, pretty simple. First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less. Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures. But every year will become more and more difficult. How many people will join this year Guillom ? Second, one person may speak in the name of its board on issues they have discussed previously. Far less on new discussions. And at the end of the discussion, the representant may not vote because legally speaking, only the entire board can take a decision. Which means that the meeting may be an opportunity to meet and exchange experiences. But it may not be an opportunity to reach agreements. If any doubt on this, a show case is the procedure chosen to select the two representants to the board. One procedure was identified by the group at last year chapter meeting. But we are doing another procedure because in the end, most did not agree with the procedure identified during the meeting. Not to say it was a loss of time of course, but the meeting can simply not be used as a decision-making time. Walking on eggs, I will also point out that not all chapters always send the most appropriate person to this meeting. When two or three people can come, the chosen people will usually be the chair and the one person doing a lot of work at international level and with many relationships with many chapters. When only one person come, I think in many cases, the chair will be selected, as representant of the chapters. And I think this person is not necessarily the best choice. In the future, we'll have to decide whether we want this annual meeting to be a small one, with max one representative (in which case, it will mostly be a sharing experiences time). Or if we want more a convention, with open membership (in which case, it will mostly be a agreement reaching time). Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ? Yes. As you've already been told, they're not sub-chapters, they're sub-national chapters. If that's the case, I suspect that we will soon have to abandon this annual meeting altogether, and will have to replace it by region meetings. Yes, and this was considered during last year's meeting postmortem. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Sebastian Moleski wrote: Hi Florence, First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less. Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures. But every year will become more and more difficult. How many people will join this year Guillom ? I don't really see why it would be more difficult. If numbers increase, we have to change the format of some of the events during the meeting. We could, for example, have full assembly sessions with all chapter representatives combined with committee meetings/workshops of a smaller size where not every chapter is represented. The meeting would turn more into a sort of conference which, as regards efficiency, isn't a bad thing at all. Second, one person may speak in the name of its board on issues they have discussed previously. Far less on new discussions. And at the end of the discussion, the representant may not vote because legally speaking, only the entire board can take a decision. I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. This should be checked by a lawyer, but imho, that's not correct, at least in France. Of course, this would depend on which types of decisions. If the decisions were completely operational and if the chapter has an ED, and if the decision is within the range of the strategy defined by the board, it's entirely okay that the ED makes the decision. However, in most other cases, I do not think that's okay. The responsability of the organisation is in the hands of the entire board. Not one member. Even if the member receives the delegation to *vote* at the meeting, I believe the decision can be cancelled afterwards if the board is not in agreement. Which means that the meeting may be an opportunity to meet and exchange experiences. But it may not be an opportunity to reach agreements. If any doubt on this, a show case is the procedure chosen to select the two representants to the board. One procedure was identified by the group at last year chapter meeting. But we are doing another procedure because in the end, most did not agree with the procedure identified during the meeting. Not to say it was a loss of time of course, but the meeting can simply not be used as a decision-making time. On of the main issues I see here was that those attending the chapter meeting had no mandate from their chapters to enter into any sort of agreement. If that is addressed prior to the next meeting, i.e. each chapter sends a representative with the necessary mandate to vote, I don't see why we would not be able to make a decision at the meeting that binds the chapters that attend. Walking on eggs, I will also point out that not all chapters always send the most appropriate person to this meeting. When two or three people can come, the chosen people will usually be the chair and the one person doing a lot of work at international level and with many relationships with many chapters. When only one person come, I think in many cases, the chair will be selected, as representant of the chapters. And I think this person is not necessarily the best choice. I would find it ideal to have each chapter send two people. That way, there's some deliberation possible among representatives from chapters and less likelihood of scheduling conflicts during the meeting. In the future, we'll have to decide whether we want this annual meeting to be a small one, with max one representative (in which case, it will mostly be a sharing experiences time). Or if we want more a convention, with open membership (in which case, it will mostly be a agreement reaching time). If we accept some sort of democratic process as the premise of decision making, open membership creates a range of problems fixed membership does not. If, for example, each chapter gets two voting representatives, it's easier to make up the rules that follow regarding quorum and debate. It's much harder if every chapter can bring as many as they want. Sorry, I meant open membership but within the board pool (and probably ED pool :-)). If 5/9 board members are present at the meeting, they constitute a quorum and their decision is *legal*. Of course, the chapter may have one or two votes within the entire group. Ant Sebastian ___ 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 (chapters)
Ting Chen wrote: Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, The territofy for the Dutch chapter ends officially at the border between Belgium and the Netherlands. I don't see it necessary to be must so. As you have said, it is unlikely that there would be a Belgium chapter. So if the community support the idea, I don't see any reason why the Dutch chapter cannot be active in Belgium. By establishing a branch there the Dutch chapter can also provide the same services it can provide for its dutch members like tax exempt status or organize meetings and other activities. If this is a good thing, and has support from the community, why not? There is no Belgium chapter and given their politics it is unlikely that there will be one. The projects in the Dutch language include many Belgians and they are welcome to become a member of the Dutch vereniging. And as far as I know none of our chapters has defined that only people from a certain region can be their membership. Delphine for example is member of the french and the italian chapter and not of the german chapter, although she lives in Frankfurt, Germany. And the example of Belgium is another good example for allow subnational chapters. Ting, it is nice that you do not see what countries have to do with chapters. One of the main points of chapters is that they represent the Wikimedia Foundation in a limited fashion and, that they take care of issues that need to be taken care off on a local level. They are things like fundraising and looking for a tax exempt status for gifts etc. When a chapter is nothing but a society, there is less need for an official connection with the WMF. The people in New York can have their own society, there is no need for them being a chapter and take care by necessity of these needs. Sure. Suppose the Foundation is not located in the USA, and there is no USA chapter. The NYC chapter can get for its members tax exemption, so this is a good thing, why not? The NYC can organize activities in their area and this is also a good thing, why not? And the chapters are by NO MEANs a sub-organization of the WMF. They are in principle independent and of their own. There are links between the WMF and the chapters, yes. But as I said, we would also support all other voluntier activities (or societies) as far as they are affordable. If you say that a chapter is only a society and that this is all that counts, I do not understand why it is not permitted to have chapters covering the same space. Why not have an Amsterdam chapter if the people from Amsterdam think it a good idea ?? The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and names. Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation. The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement. Afaik, only one chapter has. When propositions are received, either we forward them to the Foundation and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we can not negociate. Ant The cretiria for a not overlapping in geographical regions is mainly to prevent a third party to try to play one chapter against another. Greetings Ting ___ 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 (chapters)
Sebastian Moleski wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. This should be checked by a lawyer, but imho, that's not correct, at least in France. Of course, this would depend on which types of decisions. If the decisions were completely operational and if the chapter has an ED, and if the decision is within the range of the strategy defined by the board, it's entirely okay that the ED makes the decision. This may indeed be different from legal system to legal system. German law allows the board to appoint individuals who can represent the chapter individually within a clearly defined subset of the board's authority. I don't know French law but this may be something articles of association/bylaws of your chapter may stipulate too. However, in most other cases, I do not think that's okay. The responsability of the organisation is in the hands of the entire board. Not one member. Even if the member receives the delegation to *vote* at the meeting, I believe the decision can be cancelled afterwards if the board is not in agreement. If this were the case, establishing any sort of organization with organizations as members and some sort of decision-making authority would generally be close to impossible. If there is disagreement in certain areas among the board, the representative's mandate should just exlude that topic area. That means, he can participate in some discussions in a binding way, in others only in an advisory/consultative manner. Correct. Which is fine as long as no decision is made during the general meeting with all chapters... :-( If we accept some sort of democratic process as the premise of decision making, open membership creates a range of problems fixed membership does not. If, for example, each chapter gets two voting representatives, it's easier to make up the rules that follow regarding quorum and debate. It's much harder if every chapter can bring as many as they want. Sorry, I meant open membership but within the board pool (and probably ED pool :-)). If 5/9 board members are present at the meeting, they constitute a quorum and their decision is *legal*. Of course, the chapter may have one or two votes within the entire group. Sure. The question is one of fairness: is it fair for some chapters to send five delegates (i.e. voices in discussion) when others can only afford to send one? LOL. Is that fair that some participants are fluent with English and others are not ? Is that fair that some participants have a loud voice and others a weak one that can not float over the general noise ? Is that fair that some participants are easy and outgoing, whilst others are rather discreet and shy ? Is that fair that a very well developped chapter has only one voice to elect a member whilst a brand new little chapter also has one ? There is no fairness in the world Seb, only an approach of fairness :-) Sebastian ___ 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 (chapters)
Delphine Ménard wrote: [OT] On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 13:34, Sebastian Moleski seb...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com wrote: It is interesting how the power distance thing is playing out here. :) I'm not getting the reference. Can you help? For Germans, power distance [1] [2] is small, which means, for example, that it's easy for the employees to go to their boss and talk about things and make decisions on their own, it makes delegation easier. For the French, power distance is big, which means hierarchy is much stronger, and chain of command is more important, which makes delegation harder. Of course, there are millions of other factors coming into play at any given time. But I thought it was interesting to see yours and Florence's reaction on this. Delphine [1] http://www.geert-hofstede.com/ (scroll down the page) [2] and for a little self promotion: http://blog.notanendive.org/post/2008/07/25/Distance-to-power-somewhere-in-the-middle One still wonders how the French Wikipedia could ever develop... Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Mike Godwin wrote: Florence writes: The chapters has agreement with the WMF that they may in their area negotiate with third parties on use of wikimedia project logos and names. Actually, that's a pretty optimistic view of the situation. The very largest majority of chapters do not have agreement. Afaik, only one chapter has. When propositions are received, either we forward them to the Foundation and hope someone will deal with them. Or we just dump them because we can not negociate. After ongoing review of the chapter agreements, both as templates and as they have been specifically implemented, I believe Florence's characterization here is fundamentally correct. In general, the chapter agreements as they are implemented nowadays do not delegate to the chapters the right to negotiate business propositions regarding wikimedia project logos. I should add that I have not reviewed every single chapter agreement (notably, I haven't reviewed the German chapter agreement), and that in the course of trying to regularize chapter agreements we have discovered that our records of chapter agreements are incomplete, or at least scattered. (This is not a result of the relocation to San Francisco -- I think the records were disorganized or complete prior to the move.) Among my goals for this calendar year are (a) improving record-keeping of the specific chapter agreements, (b) harmonizing, to the extent possible, the chapter agreements so that there is a fairly standard understanding of what chapters may do or are likely to do as a function of their agreement with WMF, (c) improving chapter agreements in terms of trademark management and brand identification. We have asked the Stanford Law School Organizations and Transactions Clinic to work with us on reviewing and revising our standard chapters agreement this year, and if our previous experience with them is any guide, we expect this collaboration to be fruitful. Good to read :-) Go for it ! By the way, whisperwe still have not received the signed agreement for the fundraiser. Since we raised 50 000 euros or so, that means WMF could loose the control of possibly 20 000 euros. Can you make sure we get that paper so that we can start discussing means to use this money for international goal ? Otherwise, we keep it all ! I mean... one thing we can not complain about WMF is acting like a sharp ;-) /whisper hihi ant On another topic, for what it's worth, I find it clearer to think of subnational chapters rather than subchapters. --Mike ___ 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 (chapters)
Nathan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/20 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
Not quite. One criteria is that the chapters should have well defined
geographical areas and they should not overlap. So an Amsterdam chapter
beside a Dutch chapter is not possible.
It was my understanding from the sub-national chapters document that
such chapters might be permitted to form anyway:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sub-national_chapters
(Question: Aren't we setting up sub-national chapters to compete for
funding with nation-based chapters?)
What I'm taking your statement to mean is that when a subnational
chapter is formed where a national chapter could be later formed, the
overlap and potential harmful consequences of such overlap would have
to be carefully considered before national chapter is approved. Would
that be a fair characterization? Or are you meaning 'is not possible'
truly in the sense of 'will never happen'?
Earlier in this thread, Ting clearly stated that recognition of a
sub-national chapter meant a national chapter could not later be formed.
Andrew Whitworth indicated the same. Is that not the definitive answer to
the question?
Nathan
This would be real bad, because it could exclude entire areas that do
not drain sufficient memberships or funds to be able to really create a
sustainable chapter.
That could be typically the case of a country with two big cities and a
big rural area. Two chapters could be created in each city, leaving all
wikipedians in the rural areas helpless. If such was to happen, I hope
WMF would either accept the creation of a national chapter, or negotiate
with the city-chapters so that they can extend membership to neighbours.
Note that this is already the case for many national chapters. In the
French one, we host a couple of people living in Switzerland ('cause
they are French in nationality), as well as from Belgium and Luxembourg,
('cause these nations have no chapter).
I suspect a consensus will need to be found, so that 1) no harm is made
to current chapter and 2) no one be excluded which would defeat the process.
As such, flexibility should be a must.
Ant
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the Picture
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: i dont think the argument here is that people can make money from commons and the pictures etc, its the fact (as i see it) that a commercial site has a link from the french wikipedia side bar to their site to make a profit. what is the difference between this and link spamming and advertising. Well, this is one point. Another point is, as far as I know, Wikimedia.fr, which benefits from the commercial use, does not transfer money to support other projects. I would not object to commercial use of MY pictures if I knew that the profit is in a transparent (like donations) way invested in the infrastructure of the whole foundation. So far, I have not seen any evidence that this is the case. On the contrary, the main argument in the discussion was We have decided to do it in French Wikipedia, and Meta has nothing to say about this. I disagree that 800x600 is perfectly fine because, it may be fine for online content but it is not fine when printed. Not really, I can print it out and it works fine. But not as a poster of course. Cheers Yaroslav --- and ... - this is a slippery slope indeed and a dangerous precedent to set, especially at the chapter level. There are potentially ways it could be done properly (eg open access to suppliers meeting a certain standard, non-profit printing, etc.) but so long as we're meeting our targets the potential cost does not seem to be at all worth the significant risk. I hope MaxSem returns once sanity prevails, Sam --- and Hoi, The French chapter is a non profit organisation and France is not confined to a single language or a single project. When the French chapter aims to support the Wiki community and does this in France by doing similar things to the Germans, I can only applaud them. By opening up the French cultural heritage to us, all our project will benefit. By running projects locally, the WMF organisation does not need to be involved the Germans brought us the Tool server, I will happy to learn how the French will make a difference. Consequently the notion that we will not all benefit from the work of the French chapter is hard to support. Thanks, GerardM Couple of quick clarifications/reminders 1. This project was not started and developped by the French chapter, but by a wikipedia participant, who happened to ask the support of the French Chapters. Which we agreed to offer. So, there is no slippery slope. 2. The French Wikipedia community has done an non-exclusive arrangement. Only one company has been involved for now because it was the only one interested and because it was interesting to first test the concept. If you look carefully at the interface, it is quite obvious it is planned to welcome other companies; as well as to welcome community feedback on quality of service provided. 3. There is very little difference between this project and the Pediapress one. Actually, the only serious difference is that one make a donation to Wikimedia France and the other to Wikimedia Foundation. The other serious difference is that one is ported by Wikimedia Foundation and the other one ported by the community. 4. Prior to starting the service, the company spontaneously made a 500 euros donation to Wikimedia Foundation. And was disappointed to learn afterward that it would not be tax deductible. Wikimedia France provides this deductibility, hence augmenting the chance of higher donation from the company. 5. I see comments as well claiming that the operations of the French chapter do not benefit the projects. Please find here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Supported_by_Wikimedia_France the list of all pictures that could be added to Wikimedia Commons and our common pool of knowledge only THANKS to Wikimedia France (through funding of the amateur photographs travel to various famous event, or through the accreditations provided by Wikimedia France to access press areas in order to take good quality pictures). That category, supported by Wikimedia France, already host 800 good quality freely-licenced images. 6. I also see comments claiming that the benefits of Wikimedia France is not transparently reinvested in the entire infrastructure. You will find the financial report of the association: - in 2005: http://wikimedia.fr/share/rapport_financier_WMFrance2005.pdf grand total: 2721 euros - in 2006: http://wikimedia.fr/share/Rapportfinancier_final2006.pdf see details of expenses in the document. - in 2007: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Rapport_d%27activité_2007 Regarding 2008, our year report is not yet published. But you will be happy to learn that we spent 2059,99 euros for the digitization of old documents (put in wikisource) But more than that In november 2007, the board approved the following resolution which I will translate for you Résolution Le CA autorise la dépense de 2228€ pour l'achat (software +
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Wikipedia on xkcd
David Gerard wrote: http://xkcd.com/547/ - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Love it ! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Biographies of Living People: a quick interim update
Sue Gardner wrote: So .. that is my rough, quick recap of where I think we're at. In terms of next steps – as I said, I'll be speaking about this issue with the board in early April. This is just an interim note: Please feel free to help me further my thinking on all this -particularly #1 and #4 above- over the next few weeks. And thank you for your help thus far. Thanks, Sue Amen to this and thank you for the recap Sue. There were too many emails to follow, so I did not read it all. I am curious to know if there is a wiki page somewhere, summarizing the major points (and differences) between the different languages BLP policies (and actually, if there is or not a BLP policy...). Did someone create that comparison page ? Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Licence
Someone asked me a question on the French wikipedia and to be fair, I am not sure what to answer. The CURRENT text of the licencing proposition gives a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Whilst the text of the resolution adopted in december 2007 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update Refers to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ The second is the US one. Not the first. What are the implications ? And which one is *currently* proposed for the relicensing scheme ? thanks Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licence
Florence Devouard wrote: Someone asked me a question on the French wikipedia and to be fair, I am not sure what to answer. The CURRENT text of the licencing proposition gives a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Whilst the text of the resolution adopted in december 2007 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:License_update Refers to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ The second is the US one. Not the first. What are the implications ? And which one is *currently* proposed for the relicensing scheme ? thanks Ant By the way, is that completely normal that the site notice on the english wikipedia is occupied by Wikimania scholarship rather than by the change of licence ? With all due respect to Wikimania, it seems to me the impact of the licence is higher than Wikimania scholarship. Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licence
Jim Redmond wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:11, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: By the way, is that completely normal that the site notice on the english wikipedia is occupied by Wikimania scholarship rather than by the change of licence ? With all due respect to Wikimania, it seems to me the impact of the licence is higher than Wikimania scholarship. At the moment enwiki's sitenotices alternate between Wikimania scholarships and the license vote. IIRC it's the same story on other wikis as well. Okay. I checked several times. I guess it was just bad luck :-( Good then ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement on Wikimedia trademarks
Robert Rohde wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: Michael Snow wrote: This is the statement on trademarks mentioned earlier. It both states the approach we want the Wikimedia Foundation to take and directs the staff to carry it out. It basically sums up what our understanding has been for a long time, but hadn't really been formally stated anywhere. The board also voted unanimously to approve this. The statement follows: The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to enabling our mission through a wide network of chapters, community members, and organizational partners who are all able to better achieve their goals by identifying themselves with the Wikimedia community. Because of these efforts, there is a large amount of value and goodwill associated with the name and marks. Trademark law in the United States and internationally requires that the holder of a mark take affirmative steps to protect the integrity of the mark. However, because of our commitment to openness and community empowerment, we wish to do this in a way that allows chapters and community members to be able to continue to identify themselves with Wikimedia marks without being unnecessarily restrictive. Because of this, we ask the Wikimedia staff to take appropriate steps to register and protect the Wikimedia marks, develop a set of policies and practices, and develop a strategy to allow uses by the chapters and community for activities in line with the Wikimedia mission. --Michael Snow Thank you Board. Ant I'd also like to express my thanks. Not having any usage guidelines for most Wikimedia marks has been a pet peeve of mine for, oh, 3-4 years now. -Robert Rohde Hold on Robert. Michael provided us with the wish of the board. That does not mean that this is done. That does not warranty either that the implementation proposed by the staff actually follow the guidelines offered by the board. We are still a LONG way before actually seeing usage guidelines that would enable community and chapters to further our common mission. But at least, the board statement is a start. Since community elections are next corner, I guess this topic will have to come back on the plate very soon. Ant PS: see also http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values Freedom An essential part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is encouraging the development of free-content educational resources that may be created, used, and reused by the entire human community. We believe that this mission requires thriving open formats and open standards on the web to allow the creation of content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse. At the creation level, we want to provide the editing community with freely-licensed tools for participation and collaboration. Our community should also have the freedom to fork thanks to freely available dumps. The community will in turn create a body of knowledge which can be distributed freely throughout the world, viewable or playable by free software tools. Accessibility and quality All the legal freedom to modify or distribute educational content is useless if users cannot get access to it. We try our best to give online access to high quality Wikimedia project content 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, as well as provide access to regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project content. We try, through partnerships if necessary, to ensure the widest distribution, through DVD's, books, PDF's, or other non-internet based means. To ensure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our content or use of our trademarks. Independence As a non-profit, we mostly depend on gifts to operate (donations, grants, sponsorship, etc.). It is very important to us to ensure our organization stays free of influence in the way it operates. For this reason, we strictly follow a donation policy, reserve the right to refuse donations which could generate constraints, and try to multiply the diversity of revenue sources. Commitment to openness and diversity Though US-based, the organization is international in its nature. Our board of trustees, staff members, and volunteers are involved without
Re: [Foundation-l] Take a look at the latest rep watches
Michael Bimmler wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: Why would you let this spam through? No one approved it (see headers, there is no Approved-on line). But I found a legacy entry in the Always accept posts from these non-members filter for anth...@wikimedia.org... Well, I removed that line now, as Anthere is not using a @wikimedia.org address anymore. Best, Michael uh ? e, sorry for being unwillingly a spammer :-))) ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted
effe iets anders wrote: Hi Veronique, thanks for posting this. In Part VI, question 82b, it is mentioned that 333,125 USD was donated in kind. Can you confirm that this does not include the volunteer contributions to Wikipedia? (assume not, or at least hope that it's not valued that low ;-) ) A more general question for anyone who knows: Part III, question 1 mentions whether the org. tried to influence politics. Does anyone know 1) what this includes (only US politics or also foreign, also mission related lobbying (free licenses for example) or only general R/D lobbying) and 2) whether answering Yes would make any difference to the tax status etc for the WMF? (just interested :) ) The document asks about affiliates. When, according to the IRS, is an organization an affiliate? Now, that was an excellent question Eff. Yes, can you point out where in the doc you found refs to affiliates ? I had a look but could not find it? Ant Thanks! eia 2009/5/13 Veronique Kessler vkess...@wikimedia.org Dear All, Please note that the 2007 Form 990 which covers fiscal year July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008 has been posted to the Wikimedia Foundation website at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_2008_Form_990.pdf Also posted are questions and answers which can be found at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Form_2007_Questions_and_Answers Of course I am available to answer questions as well. Veronique ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Goodbye
Michael Bimmler wrote: Dear all, I would like to use this opportunity to say Goodbye to all of you, because my involvement with Wikimedia is now coming to an end. I could make this a long email, taking about my time here and giving my opinion and advice about the state and future of the Wikimedia movement, but I'd like to keep this fairly short and simple -- many of you have already received epic emails from me, you don't need another one ;-) Suffice to say, that the slightly more than 5 years that I have now been involved as non-anonymous participant in Wikipedia and Wikimedia have been very interesting to say the least - certainly a personal benefit for me, albeit one with ups and downs. In this comparably short time span, I saw the foundation mature from a rather abstract concept to a working and professionally staffed NGO with a broad networks of chapters all around the globe and I have learnt a lot in this process. I have thought long about whether I should remain involved with Wikimedia (I originally only resigned from Wikimedia CH because I am no longer in Switzerland since April and do not foresee being there other than for vacation in the next couple of years), but I decided in the end that I prefer a clear cut from everything, rather than just somewhat reducing my activity, and this year being for me personally the start of a new era anyways (new university, new country of residence etc.), it seems quite fitting to move on and start new pastimes, spend my time on new things. The little formalities: My tenure with Wikimedia CH ends on Wednesday, May 27th - my ChapCom and list admin positions end at the end of May and in general, I am fine with having all my access privileges (accounts on non-public wikis, list subscriptions etc.) removed or closed per the end of May. I wish you all the best -- from now on, I will again rely on what I read about Wikimedia's fate in the media, albeit taking it with a pinch of salt... Goodbye! Yours truly, Michael I already expressed my feelings and thanks to you a few weeks ago. You are simply a wonderful person and I know our paths will cross again. A bientôt. Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Britannica
I can not help share this with you. I was looking for the name devouard in a little tool I just discovered today (TouchGraph). And I was surprised to discover that the word devouard was highly linked to the Hoggar plateau (Ahaggar) in Algeria. I consequently clicked on the central point apparently refering to devouard. I found this page: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/9966/Ahaggar/9966rellinks/Related-Links Yeah, that's on britannica. There is a little picture on the top left hand side. Click on the picture. Now, check out http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hoggar3.jpg The resolution is rather low because these were picts taken by my husband and he did not give me permission to upload the high res ones he took. But frankly, I am super pleased to find out that one of the pict I uploaded 4 years ago are now featured in Britannica :-) Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] strategic planning IRC office hours
Eugene Eric Kim wrote: Hi everybody, We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback as we prepare to initiate this process. As a way to get to know each other and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You can convert this to your local timezone using: http://bit.ly/1aCw9p ). It will be informal. We'll be around to chat, hear your ideas, and tell you what we know thus far. Please join us, and please spread the word to others who might be interested! Thanks! =Eugene Hello Kim, With hope that tomorrow is the 22nd, I'll try to be around :-) Happy to meet you. Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Chapters as intermediaries between WMF and communities (was Re: Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation)
Kropotkine_113 wrote: Thank you very much all of you (Brigitte SB, Ting Chen, Mickael Snow and others). To close my participation in this thread I just add three points : ... - Even more important point is the cultural gap between Foundation's intentions and communication, which are very north-american slanted (I don't know how to say that), and its perception by a very multicultural community. The gap is particularly large concerning financial/executive power relations. You have to be very careful about this and to be very pedagogic when you report such decisions, because when the story will appear in french village pump (for example) it will be hard tuff for chapter's members to explain it correctly (if possible). The answer often used is : It's not evil, it's just the way american people deal with it every day. Just let me tell you that's not a sufficient answer for many people (like me ;)). I think that a non-used but very efficient solution would be to share informations before the official report and to work closely with local chapters ; but this is a more wide problem and slightly out-of-the-scope of this thread. Kropotkine_113 Using the chapters as intermediaries between the Wikimedia Foundation and the communities is actually a solution that has been used in the past. It certainly feature a certain efficiency (proximity with the community and common language). However, I am not convinced it is a good idea to go this way. First because it requires the chapter to actually agree to a certain degree with the action of the Wikimedia Foundation. Which requires internal discussion within the chapter, information of all board members, agreement over the action, and planification over the communication need. In itself, that's quite an achievement. Even if there is no clear agreement, it seems very odd that, say, the chapter would somehow give arguments to justify and explain something done by WMF to editors, whilst it does not support this action. In case the WMF does something that the community does not like, there is little reason for the heat and light to fall on the shoulders of another organization. That's WMF responsibility to assume their decisions, to inform stakeholders of their decisions, and hopefully to offer channels for stakeholders to give their feedback. I am not convinced it is within the role of chapters to be the intermediaries. And doing it regularly would possibly mislead WMF to get further apports from contributors. Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion
Ting Chen wrote: Hi Thomas, one year ago when I run for the board election I came with the same proposal as you. Meanwhile I have changed my oppinion. The problem is that this would not work out. I totally agree with you that voting is the minor part of the board decision making process. Actually in many cases it is only for the protocol and formality. The really big part is before voting, while discussion. Here you are totally right. There are a lot of differences between a board member and an advisory board member. The most important difference is the dedication. As a board member you MUST attend board meeting, you MUST take part in discussion. As an advisory board member you are not obliged to do that. Naturally, if we have an issue and we feel lack of expertise, or simply because we want to get more input from more sources, we go out and ask members of the advisory board. This is for example why some of our committees has advisory board member in it. This is also why the advisory board would play a crucial role in the strategic planning. But it is totally different between that expertise is already inside of the board or if the expertise must at first be asked from outside of the board. The best examples you can see are Stu West and Jan-Bard de Vreede. Stu with his technical and financial expertise is simply there, in every meeting, in the board mailing list, we don't have to go out and ask someone from the outside, especially because these expertise are really direly needed in every meeting and most of our topics. The same is it with the organizational expertise that Jan-Bard brings into the board both in how an ordinary procedure should look like as well as how discipline must be excercised in the board. This is the reason why they are asked to be on the board again and again and why they hold so important offices in the board. Indeed, my experience with both of them is why I have changed my opinion. I don't know Matt that long yet, just met him in one board meeting. But I do feel that in this one meeting he gave very interesting and important insights. For example how measurement of success should look like. There are also other reasons why we need expert seats. One is that sometimes you are in a discussion and stumbles over something where you didn't see the need of an expert before but where you feel really thankful to have one in the board. Naturally you can say, hey, we need here an expertise, let us at first ask someone in the advisory board and then make a decision. This actually happend in the past year more than once. But this is a slow process, you would go out and e-mail that person, she or he would answer, there would maybe more questions that you would ask again, or the board must first discuss internally and then ask again. This is totally different as if you have already that expertise in the meeting and can directly go forward. I also need not to mention that it is totally different to talk with someone from face to face or via e-mail and we cannot fly all advisory board members whose expertise are needed in to the board meeting. As I said before I had the same idea as you last year. But some times a change of perspective or new experiences show that the idea doesn't work. Greetings Ting Incidently, in the context of the strategic planning process, I talked this morning with Laura and Barry from the Bridgespan Group, as well as with Eugene yesterday. From what I understood, the Bridgespan Group is trying to interview all advisory board members to collect information and feedback for the work started on the strategic wiki (http://strategy.wikimedia.org). I think that is an excellent way to make use of the Advisory Board member and I thank them for our implication in that process. Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Thank you!
Nathan wrote: I wasn't there, but I'll echo Erik, Ting and Jerry - from everything I've read, the organizers did a great job and really represented the Wikimedia community well. Thanks for your hard work and congratulations on a job well done. Nathan ___ Wikimania-l mailing list wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l After having been a member of the past 5 Wikimanias, I have to outline how nicely organized everything was. Indeed, the bar is raised very very high now for the future events. Great program, great people, great food, great parties. Even unexpectedly warm winter weather. Patricio, you were worried the first day about the two event location... that was no trouble whatsoever. Thank you as well for the videos and live streaming, and for the translation service. Yeah, all of you guys did a great job ! ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia history ! (urgent)
I'll engage myself on all of them (GFDL presumed) I am tagging the 370. Already did 200 today. Will finish the last 170 by hand tomorrow. That's a fascinating job. Ant On 2/20/10 6:54 AM, The Cunctator wrote: Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:52 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 February 2010 00:23, Chadinnocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: I know the actual logos are trademarked, but the proposals aren't. If these are creations by Wikimedians, then hopefully they are under a free license. They should be uploaded to Commons and organized, if so! -Chad For the most part no. They were deliberately ot released so the the copyright could be transferred to the foundation. Some have since been released when they found other uses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Example.jpg for example) but most have not been. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Hello world. Update from Berlin.
On 4/21/10 6:43 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: Dear world: Help wanted. Plz send a rowboat and a few paddles. mode throwing ideas in the basket Have you thought of setting up a travel in balloon such as Jean-Louis Etienne http://www.jeanlouisetienne.com/generali_arctic_observer/en/ and asking sponsors to fund the whole thing ? /mode throwing ideas in the basket It’s no secret by now that a volcano in Iceland with an unpronounceable name decided to get cranky this week and stranded hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. With that out of the way, Did you know… that half the Wikimedia Foundation staff and a lot of volunteers who were in Berlin for the Wikimedia Developers and Chapters conferences (since renamed, collectively, “Ashcon”), were among those who were stuck? We’re making the best of it… we’ve got it better than a lot of people. We’re in a very nice hotel in downtown Berlin, and we’ve got food and drink. We’re missing our families and really want to be home, but the whole trip has a very “summer camp” feeling to it now. We’ve done laundry, and “the boys” (as Danese affectionately calls them) are whacking some Mediawiki bugs from our makeshift office in the lobby. The kind people at Wikimedia-Germany have been wonderful hosts, arranging outings, giving tours of their office, and connecting us with local Wikimedians for sight-seeing tours. We’re getting pretty good at ordering curry-wurst, and we’ve found the local Ka-De-We department store (which Danese affectionately labeled “heaven”). On the whole, we’re doing okay. Some of us are even optimistic about making it home someday soon. Others are practicing their German. But Iceland, you’re on notice: we’re holding a grudge. Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation phili...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every 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
[Foundation-l] What the board is responsible of (was Re: Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions)
On 5/8/10 12:15 AM, Ting Chen wrote: What I can say to your questions is that Jimmy informed the board about his intention and asked the board for support. Don't speaking for other board members, just speak for myself. I answered his mail with that I fully support his engagement. Personally, I think that the board is responsible for defining the scope and basic rules of the projects. While for projects like Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wiktionary the scope is more or less easier to define. On Wikipedia we have the five pillars as our basic rules. But we have also some projects that have a scope that is not quite so clear and no such basic rules. Commons is one of these projects, and the most important one. To be fair, I am *extremely* disturbed by the above statement. Since when is the board DEFINING the scope and basic rules of the projects ? As a reminder, the WMF was created two years after Wikipedia. The scope, the basic rules did not need WMF to be crafted. Over the following years, the scope and even the basic rules have evolved, usually for the better. The WMF certainly pushed on some issues, but largely, the rules and scope have been defined by the community. And this is the way it should be. You are shifting the role of the WMF in a direction that I find greatly impleasant. The original reason for creation of WMF was that we needed an owner for our servers, we needed a way to pay the bills. We needed a way to collect money. WMF was here to support the project and to support the community dealing with the project. It was here to safegard our core values. When I joined the board, I really felt WMF had to play the role of the mother toward a child. Listening to its stories, making suggestions, giving advice, providind food and shelter. Offering little presents, encouragement certainly. And tending the wounds. But a mother that would let its child decide of its own future. Letting the child decide of its own path and make its own experiments. Do mistakes, learn about mistakes, try again. That's what parenting is all about. Not defining the future of the child, but providing advice, support and helping to avoid the worst. I feel the role of the WMF is shifting. It is shifting because some board members and some staff members are mislead about the role of the WMF. Thank god, most staff and board are still on the right track. But a serious warning to me is when board members make statements such as yours above. Fact is, there is no consensus in the community as what is educational or potentially educational for Commons. And as far as I see there would probably never be a concensus. And I think this is where the board should weigh in. To define scopes and basic rules. This is why the board made this statement. There is nothing wrong with this statement and certainly nothing wrong with the board making it. However, if the problem is that the community can not reach a consensus about what educational is, I am not quite sure how helpful it is for the board to state that our scope is the educational For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's effort. I am not convinced it should be interpretated that way. Jimmy's is behaving like a vandal and breaking the very notion of our power in the hands of the community. Certainly, the board is not supporting his breaking our internal rules crafted with great care over a 10 years period. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. You know... guidance is only ok if the recommandation and behavior is reasonable and does not push people too much out of the confort zone. Guidance requires acceptance. Ant But, this topic is already pending for years. Looking back into the archives of foundation-l or village pump of Commons there were enough discussions. If the problem cannot be solved inside of the community, it is my believe it is the duty of the board and every board member to solve the problem. Ting ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 5/9/10 1:42 AM, Svip wrote: On 9 May 2010 01:01, Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.com wrote: On 5/8/10 7:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: I'm not defending such a criterion, and I do not believe that such a criterion informed Jimmy's actions. Jimmy can speak better than I can on what he was thinking, Then let him speak by himself I think most of us would be biased to hear him speak (well, metaphorically). I too am guilty of such, by ignoring advice (even if good and useful) simply because of who the speaker is. Now, I would expect any public figure like Jimmy Wales to get a bit of shit thrown at him occasionally, even from his own ranks. But I have to say, the tone has been far away from professional here and there. So letting Godwin speaking on his behalf makes sense. Besides the fact Mike is using a language far too convoluted for many speakers on this list, I would argue that one of the implications of the abusive deletions is that Jimbo is perceived as having lost touch with base. I do not think letting someone speak on his behalf will help restore trust. It's a fresh new approach to the discussion, because we are not immediately biased by it being Wales speaking. And not to mention that Godwin has a point; this was an opportunity in disguise. And unfortunately, in retrospect, this wasn't really picked up by the community, instead it turned into another 'fight the power' rebellion. I do not condone Wales' methods of handling the whole situation (hell, I am not sure how good he is at PR!), but that is a minor issue, but since of course it becomes the classic 'tyrant' in action, people focuses on the small 'controversial' things. Opportunists, I suppose. Opportunists hmmm, I am not convinced. But maybe is it fair to remind that the original vote to support removal of founder flag was NOT started because of the porn image story, but was started because of ANOTHER ISSUE (Wikiversity) that took place less than two months ago. In the French speaking world, editors have another grunge against WMF because of the deletion of all this content on the French Wikisource a few months ago, with the argument that it was *maybe* illegal under French Law. So, it may be that the issues individually taken are small. All together... ___ 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] What the board is responsible of (was Re: Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions)
On 5/9/10 3:16 AM, Casey Brown wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Mark Ryanultrab...@gmail.com wrote: I have to agree with you, Anthere. It's starting to look like over time the role of the board has evolved from broad guidance and administration to some sort of twisted version of enwp's Arbitration Committee. When the board was first created, it wasn't particularly political and its members were simply those who were most well-known and respected from across the Wikimedia communities. Now, at least some of the board members appear to be of the opinion that they have become the ultimate arbiters of what should be included in Wikimedia projects. They are not, and this will eventually become patently clear to them when their seats are due for re-election. Just throwing in a link to a page Anthere wrote summarizing the role of a board member, which might be useful here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 Well, thank you for reminding us of this link explaining what the role of a board member is and is not. Just a clarification. I am not the author of this statement. This statement comes from the board itself, and was crafted and officially approved during a board meeting in June 2007. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_board_(June_2007) Anthere ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons: An initial notice to reduce surprises
On 5/11/10 8:26 AM, David Goodman wrote: From my favorite author (paraphrased): Young admirers to Samuel Johnson: We congratulate you on not including any indelicate words in your dictionary. SJ to young admirers: what, my dears! Have you been searching for them? David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG I like it. What's the original quote and who's the author ? Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia France Wikimania Scholarships (was Re: Money, politics and corruption)
On 7/15/10 6:23 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: Perhaps in future (for say, Haifa) it would be an idea if any chapter-based scholarships were put on hold until after the Foundation makes its choices? That way the systems could mesh, with people who don't quite meet the Foundation requirements/do but oh dear, we've already used up all our scholarships being forwarded to the chapter for its decision. This year, Wikimedia France voted to approve scholarships to go to Wikimania for a total budget of 5000 euros. This decision was approved on the 24th of may and was advertised in various (french speaking) venues. The scholarship only proposed two different types of packages: 250 euros or 500 euros. There was no requirement of nationality or location, though we would probably have focused on French participants. A commission was receiving the scholarship requests and approving them. Scholars had two main obligations : - actually being at the conference :) - report after the conference In spite of sufficient time, not all scholarships were distributed, which is quite unfortunate. However, the number of French participants had never been as high in a Wikimania. One could certainly state that we are from a rich country and that our scholarships are further digging the divide between rich and poor countries. I would refute that argument. On the 27th of april, Wikimedia France also approved financial participation to help several chapters participate to the chapter meeting in Berlin. The total amount approved was 10 000 euros. Original chapters chosen to be supported were * Wikimedia Argentina * Wikimedia Australia * Wikimedia Hong Kong * Wikimedia Macedonia * Wikimedia UK * Wikimedia Serbia (yes dear) These chapters were chosen in a list of chapters-to-be-supported, with the names of the people expected as well as the amount required for each to come. The choice was made taking into account: 1) the total budget 2) the price of each plane ticket (we picked up on purpose first of all the most expensive tickets) 3) pick up on every continent available 4) and last, when final choice had to be made, indeed, according to the person-to-come (disclaimer: due to the ash mess and a flood mess, some travels were cancelled, so some of the support might have gone to a chapter different than the one originally planned). But bottom line 1) whether people came from rich or poor countries was irrelevant. What was relevant was what they would bring to the table 2) our choice was made in a master table handled by Wikimedia Deutschland... and that made sense to do it this way. - Lessons for next year Wikimania scholarship. 1) I think the French chapter was happy to have made that decision of offering scholarships for Wikimania this year. It came from the statement made at previous Wikimanias that hardly any French speaking person was attending. We meant to increase attendance and it was a success. 2) Whilst it was not discussed yet, postmortem should be made on that and we should check whether it will be relevant to do it again next year. Intuitively, I feel confortable saying that we will do it again. 3) I do not think being French should be a requirement. I however think being French speaking would please us (and the good news is that there are many French speaking countries) 4) We should however clarify our decision making process and include criteria, whatever those might be 5) And yes, though private data would be an issue to take into account, it would be nice to have a sort of common list of scholarship requests or at least one way to have those overlap so that the ones making request and being rejected are informed that other options might be feasible, or chapters are given the contact names of those rejected, and also to check that no one get dual funding (*) I guess having Wikimania website listing all organizations providing scholarships would be a start :) Ant (*) jeee, finally found a way to get rich ! On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Sara Crouse, 15/07/2010 17:24: For the moment, here are the selection criteria that were applied during the application review process: http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships#Applicant_Selection_Criteria These were originally on the Wikimania team planning wiki, and not kept private for any specific reason other than that there was no better place to put them. Thank you. A full report documenting the program, processes, results, and lessons learned will be published on meta in September. The report will be open for anyone's critique and recommendations on how things may be improved going forward. Great! Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia France Wikimania Scholarships (was Re: Money, politics and corruption)
On 7/21/10 1:37 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: The attendance of French Wikipedians was certainly high; I travelled through to Gdansk with five or six (the Why France/Britain sucks conversations were amusing). I think it's an excellent idea for individual chapters to distribute scholarships, but yes, there is a time element involved. I guess it isn't even necessarily needed for the Chapter scholarships to be issued afterwards; merely at a different time. Maybe before would work? That way you'd avoid the problem of not distributing all of it. It would also help if budget was approved at the beginning of the year so that it would be visible as early as January that money is left aside for such a use later in the year (it could also be mentionned during general assembly for example). Alas... Well, every year brings new improvements ;) Ant On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 July 2010 10:00, Noeinprono...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21/07/2010 01:57, Florence Devouard wrote: This decision was approved on the 24th of may and was advertised in various (french speaking) venues. The scholarship only proposed two different types of packages: 250 euros or 500 euros. There was no requirement of nationality or location, though we would probably have focused on French participants. A commission was receiving the scholarship requests and approving them. Scholars had two main obligations : - actually being at the conference :) - report after the conference In spite of sufficient time, not all scholarships were distributed, which is quite unfortunate. However, the number of French participants had never been as high in a Wikimania. Out of curiosity, would contacting the french-speaking registered users of en. and fr. wikipedia have been a good advertisement strategy? We advertised it on the french Wikipedia of course, and on every french wikimedia project iirc. As long as on our blog and through social media. Christophe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Private Wiki
On 7/21/10 4:39 AM, Cary Bass wrote: On 7/20/2010 7:27 PM, James Heilman wrote: Not sure were to ask this... A group of 20 of us from Wikiproject Medicine are working on a paper to explain the usage of Wikipedia to the medical community. We were working on it in Google documents but they have made some changes to their software that makes it nearly unusable. We wish to return to working in the wiki environment but need to do so in a closed environment until after publication. Anyone here able to set something like this up for us? Or have suggestions were we may do so? We were using a private wiki for a bit but its reliability was limited. Thanks Hi James, Have you checked out http://www.wikimatrix.org/ ? Cary Hello I use pbworks, basic plan (free) https://plans.pbworks.com/ Indeed, that is not mediawiki, but I find that specific wiki quite confortable to work with and the hosting service is good (not lagging horribly as other wiki farms are something doing). I have been testing it for roughly two months and feel happy about it. Currently considering going for the for-pay plan to use it for my business to communicate with my clients. The basic plan allow only one space, but this space can be closed. So it should fit your needs. Alternatively, you may set up your own mediawiki (I also have one), but this require * hosting service * domain name * install and updates To be fair, unless you are a total geek and mediawiki fan, I would recommand the no-hassle pbworks solution. Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia France Wikimania Scholarships (was Re: Money, politics and corruption)
yes, as long as it is next year budget ;) ant On 7/21/10 4:28 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: If wishes were fishes and all that. Still, it's July now; could budgets not get approved before January? On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.comwrote: On 7/21/10 1:37 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: The attendance of French Wikipedians was certainly high; I travelled through to Gdansk with five or six (the Why France/Britain sucks conversations were amusing). I think it's an excellent idea for individual chapters to distribute scholarships, but yes, there is a time element involved. I guess it isn't even necessarily needed for the Chapter scholarships to be issued afterwards; merely at a different time. Maybe before would work? That way you'd avoid the problem of not distributing all of it. It would also help if budget was approved at the beginning of the year so that it would be visible as early as January that money is left aside for such a use later in the year (it could also be mentionned during general assembly for example). Alas... Well, every year brings new improvements ;) Ant On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 July 2010 10:00, Noeinprono...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21/07/2010 01:57, Florence Devouard wrote: This decision was approved on the 24th of may and was advertised in various (french speaking) venues. The scholarship only proposed two different types of packages: 250 euros or 500 euros. There was no requirement of nationality or location, though we would probably have focused on French participants. A commission was receiving the scholarship requests and approving them. Scholars had two main obligations : - actually being at the conference :) - report after the conference In spite of sufficient time, not all scholarships were distributed, which is quite unfortunate. However, the number of French participants had never been as high in a Wikimania. Out of curiosity, would contacting the french-speaking registered users of en. and fr. wikipedia have been a good advertisement strategy? We advertised it on the french Wikipedia of course, and on every french wikimedia project iirc. As long as on our blog and through social media. Christophe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ 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] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to Foundation Website
Thanks for the quick answer Sue. I'll comment afterwards when I get Veronique further comments next week. Florence On 7/23/10 10:37 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: Hi Florence, I know Veronique plans to respond to your note, but I have two seconds right now, so I will add a quick comment below. On 23 July 2010 11:18, Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.com wrote: 2) You are maybe aware that some chapter members (deeply) regret that chapters are not listed as revenu sources in the annual plan and I hope that this will be fixed in the future. But meanwhile... are the revenus to be collected by the chapters and transferred to the Wikimedia Foundation counted in the current annual plan ? or were they not listed at all as WMF is not yet sure practical solutions will be found to transfer money from chapters to the WMF ? Or if the money coming from chapters are listed, is it counted as donations below 10K or as donations above 10K ? I had no idea that the chapters had a view on their inclusion / lack of inclusion in the annual plan -- interesting! Yes, there is some 'plug' in the plan for chapters revenues. It is a ballpark figure -- Veronique will tell us how much. It's based on the assumption that chapters will continue to fundraise, and that their ability to raise money will increase over time. At the same time, that is balanced against the Foundation's reluctance to count on the money too much, because it is far from guaranteed. Basically: we don't have information about chapters' plans/goals/targets (if they have them), and it's not uncommon for chapters to have difficulty transferring money to the Foundation. So for 2010-11, we have a plug, in community giving (since the money originates as small donations). My hope and my expectation is that as time goes on, the chapters' --and everyone's-- ability to plan and predict will increase, and we will work out the money-transferring difficulties, which will enable the Foundation to be able to be confident relying on the chapters' fundraising as part of our targets. Sorry this note is kind of choppy: I'm replying fast as I run out the door :-) 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] Why should Wikimedians meet?
On 7/31/10 5:21 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: I am thinking about making Wikimania 2011 as awesome as possible and here's a little something that bothered me. Wikimania 2010 was my first. It was a lot of fun to meet Wikimedians from around the world. I also think that a lot of new ideas were born thanks to the personal meetings in Gdansk, at least some of which may grow to successful projects. Maybe it will be smarter use of machine translation, maybe outreach to underprivileged languages, maybe accessibility improvements. Maybe other things. But all of the above are nice dreams about the future. Is there any proven experience from the past that demonstrates why personal meetings between Wikimedians are not just fun for them, but actually beneficial to the Wikimedia community, the Internet, the Humanity? Can anyone here give me solid examples of successful projects that were born thanks to past Wikimanias? Children... I know that for a fact :) Delphine met Arne whilst going to Germany to prepare first Wikimania ever. Look now: two children. Our future :) Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] xkcd's map of the internet
On 10/6/10 5:43 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: xkcd's updated somewhat-but-not-strictly-scientific map of social communities, where the size of website territories is determined by the size of their userbase activity, is out: http://xkcd.com/802/ a) it's hilarious b) look at how tiny wikimedia talk pages are! Ok, maybe that's just me but I could not find us ! Where are we ? (north west ? south east ? ) cf 2007 where we were a whole archipelago: http://xkcd.com/256/. However, the 2nd map is based on activity rather than simply number of users. Also note this is relative size compared to other websites. Ethan Bloch did an update also that has Wikipedia as being substantially larger, which uses estimated number of users: http://www.flowtown.com/blog/the-2010-social-networking-map I can not help feel proud by the size of the social networking activity of the French wikipedia. We talk a lot :) ant -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] xkcd's map of the internet
On 10/7/10 12:52 AM, Svip wrote: On 7 October 2010 00:44, Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.com wrote: Ok, maybe that's just me but I could not find us ! Where are we ? (north west ? south east ? ) Between Troll Bay and Sea of Memes. Heh, that felt silly to say. ouarf. Well, yeah, that's good news. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not He got it right ! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Liu Xiaobo
Censorship ! :) On 10/9/10 12:35 AM, Austin Hair wrote: Peter has been placed on moderation as a preventive measure. If future posts are still civil, irrespective of sanity considerations, we'll let them through. Austin On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: I don't know why such fuss has been made in the media about this. Under Chinese law, Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by Chinese judicial departments for violating Chinese law http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/461876 His own community has delivered a verdict upon him: he is a criminal. He deserves 'fair treatment' no more than the trolls who have disrupted the Wikipedia deserve so-called 'fair treatment'. Those who violate community norms, such as Xiaobo (in the case of China) or many of the disruptive elements who create havoc on the project by their offensive comments and offsite attacks. The Chinese government imposed a blackout on news of the award: quite right. This is exactly what would happen on Wikipedia, by means of blocks in article space, talk pages and email access. More power to the community! Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?
On 10/26/10 11:01 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: I'd love to see at least a basic MediaWiki/Etherpad integration, it would give MW a huge productivity boost for real-time note-taking and collaboration. + 1 ! Anthere ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraiser 2010: A memo to the community
On 11/5/10 1:37 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: A memo to Wikimedia community, friends, staff, and other stakeholders. On Monday, November 15, we will launch the 2010 annual fundraising drive for the Wikimedia Foundation. As you know, our funding model relies on the support of our friends and community members. Our average donation is about $25, and we have received more than 500,000 donations in the lifetime of the foundation. This year, we have to raise $16,000,000. That’s our biggest target yet, but it’s still only a tiny fraction of what the other top-ten websites spend on their operations. It’s critical that we reach our goal to maintain the infrastructure necessary to keep Wikipedia and its sister sites running smoothly. We are a community that does great things, and does them routinely. As we begin to bring this year's fundraiser to a close, we will launch our 10th Anniversary year! It's hard to believe, isn't it? What would the world be like, if the wiki hadn't launched? If we hadn't jumped in to grow it? If we hadn't financially supported it? The world would be a far different -- and far more sad -- place, I think. This 10th anniversary year provides an opportunity for reflection and introspection, but it also provides a chance to refocus: to plan, to build, to grow. We've just completed the strategic planning initiative, and emerged with a cohesive, defined plan for the future growth and development of the Foundation, the projects, and the movement. Now is the time. So let's get going. Since August, a team of dedicated staff members and volunteers has worked to develop the fundraiser for this year. We committed early to radical and full disclosure of all the data we had, in keeping with the spirit of the transparent nature of the Wikimedia movement. We quickly identified three major points in the donation process that were levers we could pull to optimize the process: banner messaging, banner design, and landing/donation pages. Banner messaging: Wikimedia fundraising has always been driven by site notices -- banners -- that run at the top of project websites. We’ve known for years that different banner messages drive different numbers of people to click through and donate. Therefore, this year we began the fundraiser by inviting community members to propose new banner messages for us to test. Almost 900 people were involved in the creation and discussion of potential banner messages We tested dozens of iterations of banner designs, including both graphical and text, and we will continue to do so. Many of the new banners did well. Unfortunately, none of them came anywhere near the 3% clickthrough rate of the winning banner from years past: “Please read: a personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.” But we’re going to keep trying. Our research indicates that banner wins because it is simple and direct with no attempt at marketing or manipulation. So we’re going to test, “A personal appeal from Wikimedia editor _” and later in this memo, I’m going to invite you to be that editor and write an appeal for us to use in the fundraiser. Banner design: In our testing this year, we also quickly learned that graphical banners perform almost 100% better than text banners with the same message. Because of this, we will obviously be using more graphic heavy banners than we have in past campaigns. Landing/donation pages: Once a user clicks a banner, they land on a page that asks for a donation and provides payment options. We have spent a lot of time and energy optimizing those landing pages. Optimization of donation forms is an art and a science that involves messaging, graphic design, and usability research. We will have iterated through roughly 40 different designs before landing on the ones that we'll launch with. We are committed to encouraging people to beat us at our own game: we invite chapters and affiliated groups, organizations, and Wikimedians to create their own landing pages that they believe will work better than the ones we're running. If we see some that are exciting, we'll test them, and run the ones that perform best! In countries where there are Wikimedia chapters, the chapter has the option to create their own landing page to test along side the default. All right. Forgive me to be straigth forward but there is something I do not understand here. Practically speaking... when a French person will click on the banner at the top of a wikipedia page, he will be directed to a landing page currently hosted by Wikimedia Foundation (let's call it landing page). Then, on this page, the French donor will have the option to click on a button make a donation. When it happens, he will be redirected to the chapter donation website when he can follow the donation procedure. Back to the landing page hosted by Wikimedia FOundation. As far as I
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraiser 2010: A memo to the community
On 11/5/10 3:21 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: On 11/5/10 1:37 AM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: A memo to Wikimedia community, friends, staff, and other stakeholders. Arg. I just read your internal email. I should never read external emails before internal news lists. My question is consequently irrelevant :) /me goes hide in a(n?) hole ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikileaks point ? Re: Wikipedia Executive Director?
On 12/10/10 1:01 AM, Michael Snow wrote: On 12/9/2010 3:28 PM, MZMcBride wrote: Calling Jimmy Wikipedia founder was already incredibly close to crossing the line. Calling Sue Wikipedia Executive Director clearly crosses the line. From reading your posts today, I believe you agree. While I didn't and wouldn't raise the issue of criminality here, the sleazy tactics are in the fundraising approach, not in the criticism. Which line are you talking about here? Crediting Jimmy Wales as a founder of Wikipedia is indisputable. Yes, other people might wish to claim that title as well - based on previous discussions when I was on the Board of Trustees, I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation takes any position on that, although obviously Jimmy on a personal level does - but none of those other claims can negate Jimmy's. As for referring to Sue as Wikipedia Executive Director, I find it inaccurate and confusing, but I know enough about the staff and the fundraising process to expect that it was the result of well-meaning attempts at communicating concisely with a large audience unfamiliar with our organizational details. Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line as far as accuracy goes, but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it sleazy. And yes, it is sleazy and underhanded to insinuate things like criminal behavior about other people if you're not willing to commit outright to a set of facts to establish a charge or an accusation that can be defended against. By way of illustration, that is one of the reasons various advocates for a free press, free speech, and other civil libertarians are so outraged at some of the government and corporate tactics that have been used against Wikileaks in the past week or so. --Michael Snow Lately, I have been wondering if - in a similar way than the Godwin point appeared a few years ago - we would not see something like a Wikileaks point appears Something like As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Wikileaks approaches 1 to refer to the chance of ending up discussing censorship and free speech whilst involved in a debate. What do you think ? Anthere ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikileaks point ? Re: Wikipedia Executive Director?
On 12/14/10 2:39 PM, KIZU Naoko wrote: You can claim to call it Devouard's Law, if preferable. Haha, no. It is far too similar to Godwin Law. It would be plagiarism (#evil). But I stand up by my claim. I would be curious to see how it evolves. Any mention of censorship --- reference to Wikileaks Ant On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.com wrote: On 12/10/10 1:01 AM, Michael Snow wrote: On 12/9/2010 3:28 PM, MZMcBride wrote: Calling Jimmy Wikipedia founder was already incredibly close to crossing the line. Calling Sue Wikipedia Executive Director clearly crosses the line. From reading your posts today, I believe you agree. While I didn't and wouldn't raise the issue of criminality here, the sleazy tactics are in the fundraising approach, not in the criticism. Which line are you talking about here? Crediting Jimmy Wales as a founder of Wikipedia is indisputable. Yes, other people might wish to claim that title as well - based on previous discussions when I was on the Board of Trustees, I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation takes any position on that, although obviously Jimmy on a personal level does - but none of those other claims can negate Jimmy's. As for referring to Sue as Wikipedia Executive Director, I find it inaccurate and confusing, but I know enough about the staff and the fundraising process to expect that it was the result of well-meaning attempts at communicating concisely with a large audience unfamiliar with our organizational details. Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line as far as accuracy goes, but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it sleazy. And yes, it is sleazy and underhanded to insinuate things like criminal behavior about other people if you're not willing to commit outright to a set of facts to establish a charge or an accusation that can be defended against. By way of illustration, that is one of the reasons various advocates for a free press, free speech, and other civil libertarians are so outraged at some of the government and corporate tactics that have been used against Wikileaks in the past week or so. --Michael Snow Lately, I have been wondering if - in a similar way than the Godwin point appeared a few years ago - we would not see something like a Wikileaks point appears Something like As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Wikileaks approaches 1 to refer to the chance of ending up discussing censorship and free speech whilst involved in a debate. What do you think ? Anthere ___ 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] Announcement: Pete Forsyth leaving the Wikimedia Foundation
Hm, Well, Thank you for your job at WMF Pete. I missed you on irc chan this evening. Will be glad to chat with you about your next job :) Ant On 1/13/11 9:24 PM, Frank Schulenburg wrote: Hi All, This email is to announce that Pete Forsyth's year-long position with the Foundation has come to an end and he is leaving us January 15, 2011. Pete's contract as Public Outreach Officer actually ended by in October 2010, but we asked him to stay on for an additional few months to finish a few things and during that time he also provided some critical help to Sara Crouse on grant proposals and reports. Pete's biggest achievement was to help with the first phase of our Public Policy Initiative. He conducted initial interviews with about 40 professors and other stakeholders in fall 2009. He also worked with Rod Dunican, Sara and me to write the grant proposal for the Stanton Foundation in early 2010. In August 2010, Pete was involved in the training of the initial cohort of volunteer Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors. He also procured the donation to the commons of 18 high quality case studies by Cambridge University Press. As Public Outreach Officer, Pete worked with volunteers on outreach via screencasts, software feature development, and other initatives. He advised numerous Wikimedia projects in community relations and advised staff on onboarding and training processes related to wiki skills and Wikimedia culture. For our Bookshelf project, Pete authored and edited instructional materials about Wikipedia and related projects. In addition to working on the Public Policy Initiative grant proposal, he worked with Sara developing and writing proposals and reports for grants for foundations including Hewlett, Stanton, Ford, and Google Charitable Giving Fund. During his time at the Wikimedia Foundation, Pete presented to graduate students and faculty at Princeton and Harvard university; and to museum Wikimedians, museum curators, librarians at Wikimania, the Chapters meeting, Recent Changes Camp, and Wikimedia France's GLAM event. Going forward, Pete will be working as a consultant on online peer production projects, and looks forward to continued collaboration with the Wikimedians and academics he has worked with while at the Foundation. In the near term, Pete will also continue to consult with Sara on foundation relations projects. I particularly appreciated Pete's deep insights into Wikpedia's culture and policies. His involvement in the Public Policy Initiative was key in linking Wikipedia peer production with higher education. I wish Pete all the very best for his future. Frank - NB. This mail address is used for public mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will get lost. ___ 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] Advertising on Wikipedia
Bonjour François En fait, wikiwix n'est pas un site miroir de Wikipedia (une copie). C'est un peu plus compliqué. Le lien sur lequel vous avez cliqué fait partie des liens de références (c'est à dire des liens menant vers des sites web externes, qui sont utilisés comme sources de l'article). Par exemple, ce lien est une source externe: http://www.t4cdev.com/ Ce qui se produit est que les pages web parfois utilisées comme sources disparaissent. Soient que de gratuites, elles passent en version payantes avec code d'accès. Soient que le site hébergeur les déplacent (change leur url). Soient qu'elles soient tout simplement otées du site source. C'est évidemment ennuyeux pour nos articles car une information source devient alors inaccessible. Ce que fournit le système wikiwix (qui est en effet indépendant de Wikipedia) est un système d'archivage des pages web sources. Wikiwix copie la page et l'archive. Si la page vient à disparaitre ou devenir inaccessible, la version originale est toujours accessible via le système d'archivage wikiwix. Ainsi, par rapport au lien susmentionné, la version archivée est accessible ici: http://wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http://www.t4cdev.com/title=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.t4cdev.com%2F Donc, je récapitule... Votre nièce est sur Wikipedia (sans publicité) Elle clique sur un lien externe (lien vers un site externe à Wikipedia, utilisé comme source dans l'article), dans son état archivé (par une société indépendante de Wikipedia). Cette société d'archivage se rémunère par le biais de publicité. Et c'est depuis le site de cette société que votre nièce est tombée sur de la publicité pour un site pour adulte. Merci Florence On 1/21/11 5:58 PM, F.-F. Duron wrote: Bonjour, J'espère m'adresser au bon endroit. Aujourd'hui, ma nièce m'a appelé à l'ordinateur en me disant que Wikipédia faisait de la publicité pour un site pour adultes. Je lui ai dit que Wikipédia n'affichait pas de publicité. Elle a insisté et voilà ce que j'ai découvert : http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5869/wikipediasocietewikiwix.jpg C'était sur ce lien : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Quatri%C3%A8me_Proph%C3%A9tie Pourquoi ces liens publicitaires ? Je suis vraiment très étonné. François P.S. Je ne sais pas si je dois écrire en anglais. Est-ce que quelqu'un peut traduire mon message ? Merci. ___ 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] Questions about new Fellow
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:23 PM, MZMcBridez...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Hi. As Daniel noted in his earlier e-mail to the list, Achal Prabhala is now a Wikimedia Fellow.[1] I actually missed this announcement as it didn't hit wikimediaannounce-l or this list (foundation-l), it apparently only got posted to the blog, but that's not really here nor there. There have been rumblings about some of the surrounding circumstances that I think warrant consideration and discussion. Achal is a member of the Advisory Board[2] but isn't very active in wikis/open source. A few questions pop up in my head. Is there a concern about such an individual being a Wikimedia Fellow? That is, someone who's not particularly attached to wikis/open source? All of the other Wikimedia Fellows have fairly strong editing backgrounds. The edits by Achal seem to be rather sparse: http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Aprabhala More importantly, is there a concern about an Advisory Board member being chosen as a Wikimedia Fellow? Is there a conflict of interest there? Is there a concern about the appearance of impropriety? Hello I really fail to see how being an advisory board member could in any sense create a conflict of interest. As the term very well describes it, advisory board members are merely advisors not decision makers. Just as *any* community member is also an advisor to the Wikimedia Foundation staff. Incidently, the advisory board has been originally created so that we could create links with people who were NOT editors, but had things we (the board at that time) thought they could share with us, and help us on the difficult path of bringing the Foundation to a professional, efficient, helpful model. It is a side effect that now past board members who happened to be involved in the community are also part of the advisory board. Originally, none of the members were community members. We (and we actually included the community; the community was involved in building the advisory board, on this very list, on meta and through a special committee) looked together for people with various expertise BEYOND our own wiki world. People with expertise in legal issues, financial issues, business, education, politics and so on. That was *exactly* the goal of this advisory board. Making sure that we would not be merely relying on our own community, but would actually learn from others and welcome comments, suggestions, help. Look beyond our own wiki world. Expand ! Within the original advisory board, Achal has probably been the most active in the past years. He definitly joined the conversation. I find it really odd to read now that being on the advisory board might actually be a disadvantage and that being a community member would be considered more important than being bright, involved, funny, good looking (yea), entrepreneur and so on. Achal has a growing influence on Wikimedia, particularly its new operations in India. This has included being part of the hiring decisions, etc. This is more of a consultant role, making his selection as a Wikimedia Fellow even stranger. And his growing influence and power in such a big part of Wikimedia's five-year strategy is making people wary. I think conversation and engagement (on this list and elsewhere) would be very good in a number of ways. MZMcBride [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=2748 [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board On 1/20/11 9:46 AM, whothis wrote: I agree with what he said. After looking him up, the only qualification I can find of this person is that he's on the advisory board, No idea, how he got there and for how long is his term, makes me think that maybe there is a Cabal. Most places mirror his description on the Advisory Board page. I am tired of seeing the same names, doing the rounds over and over again, from groups to committees to fellowships to whatever that comes next. Will anyone else from the Advisory board or maybe even the board, past or present members included, going to receive a fellowship now? LOL Long time since I saw such a perfect example of fallacious argument. Thank you for the laugh :) Anthere ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the CFOO department
Thank you Veronique for taking on that tough job of straightening WMF financial procedures from basically scratch to what they are today. I with you and your family the best of luck ! Florence On 3/3/11 9:41 PM, Veronique Kessler wrote: Hi All, I'll be leaving WMF at the end of June to relocate with my family to Austin, TX.This has been a difficult decision to make. I have worked for the Foundation for more than 3 years and it has been an incredible experience. I've had the opportunity here to wear many different hats and to be part of a creative leadership team at the fastest-growing non-profit in the U.S.I know that I will never encounter another organization quite like WMF again, but I do hope to impart some of the great aspects of WMF (such as transparency and collaboration) to other organizations in the future. I'm sticking around to to complete the development of the 2011-12 business plan, hence I'll be here with WMF until July 1. You can expect me to be doing my normal work until then, and of course I'll be available afterwards if the organization needs anything from me. Thanks to everyone who is part of the fantastic projects of Wikimedia and keep up the good work! Veronique ___ 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] [Announce] Brion Vibber to rejoin Wikimedia Foundation
On 3/8/11 7:05 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: A pleasure to have him back. +1 Anthere ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Elections email
On 6/10/11 3:30 PM, Yann Forget wrote:
Hello,
I also received one, with
{{GENDER:Yann|Cher|Chère|Cher/Chère}} Yann,
Well, is this an attempt to be politically correct for BTGL? ;o)
Regards,
Yann
Yes, this one was very cute :)
I also liked the
Le comité directeur est l'organe de décision qui est i in fine /i
responsable de la viabilité à long terme de la WMF
Otherwise very disappointed because I got only one invitation :(((
Flo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Spam fame
Here is a copy of an email I received today in my mail box. I saw it at the ultimate proof of fame :) -- Managing Partners Clinton Barnes Solicitors Co 326-328 Old Street London, EC1V 9DR England Dear Sir / Madam , I am Clinton Barnes , an attorney at law. A deceased client of mine, that shares the same last name as yours , died as a result of a heart-related condition on March 12th 2005. His heart condition was due to the death of all the members of his family in the tsunami disaster on the 26th December 2004 in Sumatra Indonesia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake I am contacting you to seek your consent to present you as the next of kin to my late client .This will be executed under a legitimate arrangement that will protect you from any breach of the law. If this business proposition offends your moral values, do accept my apology. I can be reached on : clintonbar...@yahoo.cn Sincerely Yours, Barrister Clinton Barnes. Attorney at Law ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] SEOs :((((
Someone just pointed me this link : http://webmasterformat.com/blog/destroy-wikipedia-serp-ranking Florence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 8/9/11 4:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: 2011/8/9 Delphine Ménardnotafi...@gmail.com On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Kirill Lokshinkirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote: Well, let's be clear here: in what sense are the chapters participating in the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. Wow, this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality. While Foundation staff has provided an invaluable support to make the fundraiser a success, it probably wouldn't have been such a success hadn't there been dozens of volunteers, among which _many_ chapter board members and simple members who spent uncounted hours of localizing and adapting messages, providing stories, refining landing pages, answering donors questions etc. You may want to look at the fundraising pages on meta to see the level of involvement of the community as a whole in making it a success, and even that does not give a real idea of how much chapters' communities have participated (much happens on their chapters' mailing lists for example). I'm not suggesting that the success of the fundraiser isn't due in large part to broad community involvement; my assertion is that this community involvement would take place whether or not a formal chapter was involved. I think that on this very point, even the WMF would disagree with you. Actually, the very fact that WMF explicitely put in the fundraising agreement that the Chapter *has to* provide translations of the fundraising messages (which include as well stuff such as Jimbo's letter) suggests that translations may not as magically appear as we would hope. It rather suggests that chapters actually do have an invaluable role in making sure that the fundraiser is not 100% in English langage (even though members of the community who are not members of the chapter clearly help in translation). In short, community, both within and not within chapter realm, support the entire system. Aside from this, I am quite shocked when I read quotein what sense are the chapters participating in the fundraiser, rather than merely being its beneficiaries? The underlying fundraising work -- the actual solicitation of donations, in other words -- is performed by WMF staff directly. The chapters do provide some level of administrative and accounting support, obviously; but that could just as easily be done by the WMF as well, and likely at lower cost. The only real advantage a chapter's involvement can provide over a fully WMF-operated fundraiser is the availability of tax benefits in a particular jurisdiction; and, given the small size of the average donation, it's unclear to what extent such tax benefits are a significant consideration for the average donor. /quote But I'll forgive you because you obviously are not totally aware of what's going in the various chapters. Having been involved in fundraising for Wikimedia France, I can certainly assure you that the chapter is not merely being a beneficiary. The actual sollicitation of donations is not only performed by WMF staff (are you aware that chapters also provide a specific landing page for sollicitation ? specific messages ? Localized press release ? payments methods are adapted to local situation ? ). The one thing that chapters can provide to donors in their geographical area that WMF will never been able to provide (at least, not at any reasonable cost) is to talk to them as citizens of the same country. Same langage. Same culture. Local events happening HERE rather than on the other side of earth. Local partnership with institutions they know about. It tells them about THEM. It is about THEM. This proximity can only be provided by chapters. Claiming that WMF would provide the same job for a lower cost is actually quite laughable given that WMF is actually PAYING staff to do this (it costs money) whilst the majority of that work is being done for free by chapter members (it costs less money to work for free...). And people have staff, in many (not all) countries, staff costs is actually lower than in the USA. So the likely at lower cost comes from nowhere and is unlikely to be true. There is only one point which I will grant you. Some chapters offer tax deduction to their donors. This indeed require work to provide hence expenses. If WMF was receiving those donations with no tax receipt to provide, it would indeed require less work. Hence cost less. This said, in France, over 90% of our donors ask for this receipt. I expect that many would not give money to an US organization with no tax receipt at all. I have no figure to support this, but I am willing to give it a go for a few weeks.
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
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. I don't know how I can be more clear. The idea that the only thing that can make chapters really decentralized is the very narrow question of who actually processes the donation is mistaken. --Jimbo Decentralization would be possibly maintained if grants were unrestricted ones. But this is not what is being done. Grants are restricted. When chapters used to fundraise themselves, they had the power to decide their programs, as fit an organization that is independant. Chapters are losing that power. From the moment Wikimedia Foundation gives grants according to specific projects they approve or do not approve, they actually decide what the chapter does or does not. Chapters are being centralized. I don't know how we can be more clear on that. Florence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF
On 9/1/11 5:37 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: On 8/28/11 1:00 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: I think that developing such a legal entity should be a high priority for Brazilian Wikipedians to ensure that Wiki activities in Brazil are controlled by Brazilians. At the same time I don't think there is any value to having a WMF appointee on your board; such a person would find it difficult to function under circumstances of perpetual conflict of interest. No other chapter has such a clause. I had never thought of this before, but now that it has been mentioned, I just wanted to disagree, quite respectfully because Ray is awesome of course, and say that I think it is a very interesting idea to have a WMF appointee on the boards of chapters. There should be very few cases where there is a conflict of interest since chapters and the Foundation are deeply tied together always (and that's a good thing). I think having a Foundation representative on the board of chapters does present some possibly insurmountable logistical issues (who will they be?) but I actually think such an arrangement might be incredibly valuable for improving communication and *decreasing* perceived conflicts of interest. --Jimbo Beside the excellents points raised by my collegues ... I cannot wait to see the WMF representative learn the local language to be able to communicate with the chapter board members ... or for WMF to pay a translator in 30+ languages to do real time translation of board meetings, operational reports translation, real time general assembly discussion translation AHAHAHAHA Florence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF
On 9/1/11 5:37 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: On 8/28/11 1:00 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: I think that developing such a legal entity should be a high priority for Brazilian Wikipedians to ensure that Wiki activities in Brazil are controlled by Brazilians. At the same time I don't think there is any value to having a WMF appointee on your board; such a person would find it difficult to function under circumstances of perpetual conflict of interest. No other chapter has such a clause. I had never thought of this before, but now that it has been mentioned, I just wanted to disagree, quite respectfully because Ray is awesome of course, and say that I think it is a very interesting idea to have a WMF appointee on the boards of chapters. There should be very few cases where there is a conflict of interest since chapters and the Foundation are deeply tied together always (and that's a good thing). I think having a Foundation representative on the board of chapters does present some possibly insurmountable logistical issues (who will they be?) but I actually think such an arrangement might be incredibly valuable for improving communication and *decreasing* perceived conflicts of interest. --Jimbo I can not help commenting a bit more on the matter of conflict of interest. I think I can probably say more on the matter than most people here. First because I pushed a LOT for the adoption of a COI policy on the board of WMF. And this generated lot's of painful discussions between you, Michael and I. In particular with regards to your involvement with Wikia. Second because Wikimedia France used to have in its bylaws that it had a representant of WMF on its board. With veto rights. Third because I used to be that person. Our bylaws were changed a few years ago, as to decrease to a maximum the risk of WMF being considered liable in France through Wikimedia France. Removing this representative was the first obvious recommendation of the lawyer. Fourth because I pushed with others for this rule according to which there should be no overlap between board of chapters/WMF and no overlap between staff and board as well. And I resigned from Wikimedia France board to respect that rule. The truth is being a board member requires to be totally loyal to the organization you are a board member of. One should not vote according to personal interests nor according to the interest of another organization one is also member of, to the detriment of the first. You seek to remove perceived conflicts of interest, even if that means creating real conflicts of interest ? Because there would be conflict of interest and rather BIG ONES. We are facing rather severe challenges right now. Let's say it straight, Wikimedia Foundation is simply trying to absorb/control the chapters as is they were simple bureaux of the WMF locally and chapters kind of disagree with WMF idea that centralization is a good move for the mouvement... I can not begin to imagine how unconfortable a representant of WMF would be if he were on the board of a chapter. Would he be loyal to the chapter ? Would he be loyal to the WMF ? How fair would that be to ask *anyone* to be put in such type of situation ? And which would be the impact to the public ? (in particular to other funding organizations ?) And how much chance is there that WMF could actually shoot itself in the foot in doing this ? FLorence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF
On 9/2/11 10:02 PM, Michael Snow wrote: On 9/2/2011 12:11 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: On 9/1/11 5:37 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: On 8/28/11 1:00 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: I think that developing such a legal entity should be a high priority for Brazilian Wikipedians to ensure that Wiki activities in Brazil are controlled by Brazilians. At the same time I don't think there is any value to having a WMF appointee on your board; such a person would find it difficult to function under circumstances of perpetual conflict of interest. No other chapter has such a clause. I had never thought of this before, but now that it has been mentioned, I just wanted to disagree, quite respectfully because Ray is awesome of course, and say that I think it is a very interesting idea to have a WMF appointee on the boards of chapters. There should be very few cases where there is a conflict of interest since chapters and the Foundation are deeply tied together always (and that's a good thing). I think having a Foundation representative on the board of chapters does present some possibly insurmountable logistical issues (who will they be?) but I actually think such an arrangement might be incredibly valuable for improving communication and *decreasing* perceived conflicts of interest. --Jimbo I can not help commenting a bit more on the matter of conflict of interest. I think I can probably say more on the matter than most people here. First because I pushed a LOT for the adoption of a COI policy on the board of WMF. And this generated lot's of painful discussions between you, Michael and I. In particular with regards to your involvement with Wikia. For those reading whose memories may not be quite long enough - I assume Florence is referring to Michael Davis here, not to me. The conflict of interest policy was adopted in 2006, before I was on the board. I just thought it would help to make the distinction explicit, as it wouldn't be the first time somebody has gotten us confused. Indeed. I was talking of Michael Davis, the treasurer of the board at that time. Sorry for the confusion Michael. Florence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
On 9/19/11 11:24 PM, Kim Bruning wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 01:45:18PM -0400, David Levy wrote: Speaking of artwork, Fae mentioned the depictions of nude female breasts contained therein. Do those count? What about photographs of breasts taken in medical contexts? Are those equivalent to those taken in sexual contexts? If not, how do we define a sexual context? Also, patriotic contexts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne especially: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eug%C3%A8ne_Delacroix_-_La_libert%C3%A9_guidant_le_peuple.jpg Blocking Marianne in france might be tricky. NOT blocking her elsewhere? Also tricky. sincerely, Kim Bruning Censoring Freedom incarnated... for a free encyclopedia ça ne manque pas de sel ___ 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 10/9/11 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. Florence What we can assume is that someone on the Board raised the issue about people complaining about images, someone suggested if there are images people don't like, they should have the option to have them hidden from them, and then they agreed that someone should figure that out. Board members do not thing they have to contribute to the solution and they don't think the community should have any say in whether the feature is actually wanted by the community. Whoever is tasked with figuring this out isn't actually taking useful steps towards solving the problem. Instead we are burning goodwill by arguing the finer points of what is, exactly, censorship, how there are provocateurs in our midst, and how important, relative to not, it is that users have this feature whether they are logged in or not, and any number of other things. This is not an issue where you can hope to get everyone on board by appealing to people's empathy and understanding, people do not know whether they are to board the Titanic or the QE2, so you get a lot of talk about how the ship will sink if you build it incorrectly or steer it badly. It would be easy for the Board to resolve that at this point they ex- pect whoever they tasked with it to come up with a technical proposal in coordination with the community which might then be implemented on projects who volunteer to test it and then there will be an evaluation also in coordination with the community before any further steps are taken, for instance. But the Chair has chosen to instead inform the community that it's far too late to argue about this feature and there is no reason for the Board to do as little as hint at the possibility that this feature will not be imposed on projects by force. We can read the Letter to the Community carefully if you want. I note, e.g., deliberately offending or provoking them is not respectful, and is not okay. This is insinuating a notable group of people is taking the opposite position, which is not true. That part starts We believe we need, and should want, to treat readers with respect. Their opinions and preferences are as legitimate as our own. The list of opinions and preferences humans have held throughout history that today we would find abhorrent is very, very long. The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed to the feature. I do not see how one can have followed the discussion without running across the fact that this statement is regarded as invalid inference from the poll. Like I said, it does not really matter what he wrote, the people who've expressed concern about the filter do not care about random claims how the Board is listening and hearing and paying attention and wants us to work with you despite the Board being openly hostile towards the com- munity, whether it means to be or is just exceptionally bad at dealing with the community in a manner that is well received. What they want is that this issue goes away, whether that is by abandoning the project or a brilliant idea that nobody has thought of so far or whatever. Clearly an image filter can be developed and maintained. Having one has costs and benefits. It may well be that no filter can be developed such that the benefits outweigh the costs. Without knowing that it is not reasonable to command implementation of the filter. If this had been framed as some explorative feasibility and requirements gathering study with an open outcome and proposals sought, we would have a different kind of discussion. The Board is hoping there is a solution that will 1) enable readers to easily hide images they don't want to see, as laid out in the Board's resolution [1], while 2) being generally acceptable to editors. Maybe this will not be possible, but it's the goal. The Board definitely does not want a war with the community, and it does not want people to fork or leave the projects. The goal is a
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 2/2/12 12:26 AM, Risker wrote: On 1 February 2012 18:17, Theo10011de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Riskerrisker...@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. Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on every new appointment? The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members. The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they require. The chapter-selected seats...nobody knows what criteria are being used, what specific expertise is being sought, what skill-set is being selected for. The end result, as best I can see from the first two rounds, is the same people who could easily have run for election, because they're well known and widely active in the community. Risker/Anne As in... Michael Snow ? Who is a fabulous guy, ran in community election, and was turned down ? Florence ___ 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 2/3/12 11:15 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: As in... Michael Snow ? Who is a fabulous guy, ran in community election, and was turned down ? Florence Domas? I do not think we respect him less because of that. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Domas was not a chapter proposition :) Until now, chapter propositions have been Arne, Phoebe and Michael. Michael was turned down by community. Aware he would be a great asset, he was appointed by the board first, then proposed by chapters second to extend his time on the board. He was a great choice. I do not know if Phoebe would have been community elected or not. She did not try. I can only guess that if she were not chosen this year by chapters, she could very well be community elected in the future because she is obviously very involved and doing good stuff. Excellent secretary as well. As for Arne... I may be wrong but I think he would not have been willing to run for community elections. I also think he was a good choice. We may not have enough years of experience to be able to draw serious conclusions regarding chapter selections quality. But the two sessions draw good names. I think it makes sense to get board members selected by the community and board members selected by chapters because the focus is different. I'd love to see members selected by the community being active editors, involved on a regular basis on the project with editorial and soft development activities. And I also love seeing board members selected by the chapters being more involved with the organizational side of things (finances, legal, partnership and so on). Both sides are necessary. Chapters are not so good to identify good representants of the editorial community. And the community is not so good at selecting board members with specific expertise and knowledge on the organizational side of things. Both selections complement each other greatly. My regret though is that the community tend to reelect the same people over time, as long as they candidate again and WMF did not do anything outrageously wrong. The inconvenience of this is that board members are naturally pushed away from editorial activity (not enough time, fear of legal responsibilities etc.). And the outcome is that the board may be less and less in touch with the realities of the projects themselves. It may be one of the benefits from drawing candidates to the board from at least these 3 different pools (community, chapters, appointed) to balance the risk of a board getting too stable. I would not object if the current WMF board would restructure the system so that board members be selected from 4 different pools (such as community, chapters, appointed, groups of interest). I think it would add a diversity and a pinch of instability which may perhaps lack a little bit right now. Florence ___ 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
I wanted to share an experience with regards to a future FDC. During two years, I was a member of the comité de pilotage (which I will here translate in steering committee) of the ANR (National Research Agency in France). The ANR distributes every year about 1000 M€ to support research in France. The ANR programmatic activity is divided in 6 clearly defined themes + 1 unspecific area. Some themes are further divided for more granularity. For example, I was in the steering committee of CONTINT, which is one of the four programs of the main theme information and communication technologies. My program was about production and sharing of content and knowledge (creation, edition, search, interface, use, trust, reality, social network, futur of the internet), associated services and robotics Every year, the steering committee of each group define the strategic goals of the year and list keywords to better refine the description of what could be covered or not covered. Then a public call for projects is made. People have 2 months to present their project. From memory, the projects received by CONTINT were possibly 200. The projects are peer-reviewed by community members (just as research articles are reviewed by peers) and annotation/recommandation for support or not are provided by the peers. There is no administrative filter at this point. Then a committee constituted of peers review all the projects and their annotation/comments and rank them in three groups. C rejected. B why not. A proposed. Still not administrative filtering at this point. The steering committee, about 20 people made of community members (volunteers) and ANR staff review the A and B. Steering committee is kindly ask to try to keep A projects in A list and B projects in B list. However, various considerations will make it so that some projects are pushed up and others pushed down. It may range from this lab is great, they need funding to continue a long-going research to damned, we did not fund any robotic project this year even though it is within our priorities; what would be the best one to push up ? or if we push down this rather costly project, we could fund these three smaller ones. We may also make recommandation to a project team to rework its budget if we think it was a little bit too costly compared to the impact expected. At the end of the session, we have a brand new list of A followed by B. All projects are ranked. At this point, the budget is only an approximation, so we usually know that all A will be covered but 0 to a few Bs may be. The budget is known slightly later and the exact list of projects funded published. How do we make sure what we fund is the best choice ? Not by administrative decision. But by two rounds of independent peer-review who can estimate the quality of the project proposed and the chance for the organisations to do it well. And by a further round through which we know that all projects are interesting and feasible, but will be selected according to strategic goals defined a year earlier. There are also special calls if there is a budget to support a highly specific issue. Projects leaders have to decide if their project is related to a regular theme, or a white or a special call. The idea behind this is also that they have to make the effort to articulate their needs clearly and show what would be the outcome. The staff do not really make decisions. The staff is here to make sure all the process work smoothly, to receive the propositions and make sure they fit the basic requirements, to recruit peer for the reviews (upon suggestion made... by steering committee or other peers), to organise the meetings, to publish the results, and so on. Of course, some of them do impact the process because of their strong inner knowledge of all the actors involved. The staff is overall 30 people. How do we evaluate afterwards that we made the good choice and funded the right ones ? First because as in any funding research, there are some deliverables; Second because once a year, there is a sort of conference where all funded organizations participate and show their results. If an organization does not respect the game or repeatedly fail to produce results, they inevitably fall in the C range at some point in the peer-review process. I present a simplify process, but that generally is it. I am not saying either that it is a perfect system, it is not. But according to what I hear, the system is working fairly well and is not manipulated as much as other funding system may be ;) Last, members of the steering committee may only do a 2 years mandate. No more. There is a due COI agreement to sign and respect as well. Thanks to the various steps in the process and thanks to the good (heavy) work provided by the staff, the workload of volunteers is totally acceptable. Note that this is governement money but the government does not
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising Letter Feb 2012
Ah yeah. From what I understood, what I outline as a process is very similar to any type of academic call of projects/funding in the USA, such as NSF, NASA, NIH, DOE etc. Most basic principle: peer review evaluation. Florence On 2/9/12 11:52 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: I wanted to share an experience with regards to a future FDC. During two years, I was a member of the comité de pilotage (which I will here translate in steering committee) of the ANR (National Research Agency in France). The ANR distributes every year about 1000 M€ to support research in France. The ANR programmatic activity is divided in 6 clearly defined themes + 1 unspecific area. Some themes are further divided for more granularity. For example, I was in the steering committee of CONTINT, which is one of the four programs of the main theme information and communication technologies. My program was about production and sharing of content and knowledge (creation, edition, search, interface, use, trust, reality, social network, futur of the internet), associated services and robotics Every year, the steering committee of each group define the strategic goals of the year and list keywords to better refine the description of what could be covered or not covered. Then a public call for projects is made. People have 2 months to present their project. From memory, the projects received by CONTINT were possibly 200. The projects are peer-reviewed by community members (just as research articles are reviewed by peers) and annotation/recommandation for support or not are provided by the peers. There is no administrative filter at this point. Then a committee constituted of peers review all the projects and their annotation/comments and rank them in three groups. C rejected. B why not. A proposed. Still not administrative filtering at this point. The steering committee, about 20 people made of community members (volunteers) and ANR staff review the A and B. Steering committee is kindly ask to try to keep A projects in A list and B projects in B list. However, various considerations will make it so that some projects are pushed up and others pushed down. It may range from this lab is great, they need funding to continue a long-going research to damned, we did not fund any robotic project this year even though it is within our priorities; what would be the best one to push up ? or if we push down this rather costly project, we could fund these three smaller ones. We may also make recommandation to a project team to rework its budget if we think it was a little bit too costly compared to the impact expected. At the end of the session, we have a brand new list of A followed by B. All projects are ranked. At this point, the budget is only an approximation, so we usually know that all A will be covered but 0 to a few Bs may be. The budget is known slightly later and the exact list of projects funded published. How do we make sure what we fund is the best choice ? Not by administrative decision. But by two rounds of independent peer-review who can estimate the quality of the project proposed and the chance for the organisations to do it well. And by a further round through which we know that all projects are interesting and feasible, but will be selected according to strategic goals defined a year earlier. There are also special calls if there is a budget to support a highly specific issue. Projects leaders have to decide if their project is related to a regular theme, or a white or a special call. The idea behind this is also that they have to make the effort to articulate their needs clearly and show what would be the outcome. The staff do not really make decisions. The staff is here to make sure all the process work smoothly, to receive the propositions and make sure they fit the basic requirements, to recruit peer for the reviews (upon suggestion made... by steering committee or other peers), to organise the meetings, to publish the results, and so on. Of course, some of them do impact the process because of their strong inner knowledge of all the actors involved. The staff is overall 30 people. How do we evaluate afterwards that we made the good choice and funded the right ones ? First because as in any funding research, there are some deliverables; Second because once a year, there is a sort of conference where all funded organizations participate and show their results. If an organization does not respect the game or repeatedly fail to produce results, they inevitably fall in the C range at some point in the peer-review process. I present a simplify process, but that generally is it. I am not saying either that it is a perfect system, it is not. But according to what I hear, the system is working fairly well and is not manipulated as much as other funding system may be ;) Last, members of the steering committee may only do a 2 years mandate. No more. There is a due COI agreement to sign and respect as well. Thanks
Re: [Foundation-l] Invitation to participate in Wiki Africa project!
On 2/10/12 10:13 AM, franc...@africacentre.net wrote: Dear Wiki colleagues, I am excited to invite members of Wikimedia Foundation Ah. Hum. Okay. Thanks for the invitation, which I just forwarded to Wikimedia France Florence to participate in the Wiki Africa project that will expand and increase the contents of Africa information in Wikipedia. Through this invitation we hope to build a strong partnership in promoting African content in Wikipedia. WikiAfrica is an international collaborative project between Africa Centre and Lettera27 that is designed to Africanize Wikipedia by generating and expanding 30,000 articles over two years. The project promotes a new method of acquiring and sharing knowledge that is fully-inclusive, mainstream, intercultural and relevant to contemporary and historic Africa. The initial two years are focused on encouraging external Africa-based, cultural organizations, museums and archives, as well as bloggers and journalists, to contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia. These initial two years focus on content related to literature, poetry, art, cinema and other cultural products. WikiAfrica will not exclude anything that falls outside of these categories, but focuses most of its energy in these areas. At the same time, the WikiAfrica project expands the African content that is already available online and improves existing articles by combining sources and promoting the participation of experts. WikiAfrica contributes to the aims of Wikimedia projects online (especially the WikiProject Africa, WikiProject African diaspora and the Africa Portal) and also works externally with texts, quotes, images, audio and video. The project will be approached and achieve its goals via the following four activities: -Create partnerships with organisations that have existing archives that are readily accessible and that are predisposed to placing this content online; -Motivate the adaptation of a copyleft or Creative Commons approach to intellectual property. -Activate new Wikipedia users and editors in Africa through marketing and promotion; and -Create training tools and establish the mentorships required to activate a new team of users and editors of Wikipedia (wikipedians). Click on Get started (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Get_started ) or the Project page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Projects) to contribute to Wiki Africa and become a member of Wiki Africa! Please visit our incubator at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiAfrica/Incubator for a step by step guide on how to start your articles for new authors. We look forward to working with all Wikimedia members interested in developing African content through knowledge exchange, participation and contribution to this project. For any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you Francis Awinda Administrator and content manager Wiki Africa Email:franc...@africacentre.net Tel:+27793087519 ___ 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] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote: Why would both Associations and Affiliates both need to use Wikimedia marks ? Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ? I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's. Very likely. But it is does not really matter actually because this decision is a clear sign that Chapters do not really exist anymore except on the paper. Chance is that the concept will disappear within the next couple of year, simply because it will become a concept redondant with partner organizations. But my immediate concern is that hummm I fail to really see the difference between the 4 cases. Could we have some examples of each to better see what the difference is ? For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ? Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ? And if there is a chapter-to-be somewhere, already a legal entity but not yet approved by a chapter, would that be a partner or an affiliate ? One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that * partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation * whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF only. In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner will be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters. But well Florence Le 13/02/2012 08:09, Ting Chen a écrit : 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 mandate of the Chapters Committee to include all affiliations, and asks it to update its scope and rules of procedure to cover: * recognizing all group models * mentoring chapters and partner organiations * reviewing and summarizing the status of all groups The committee should also indicate what resources it will need to be effective, including staff support and resources from the Foundation. This proposed charter and plan
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On 2/13/12 12:51 PM, Bishakha Datta wrote: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.comwrote: One benefit I can identify from this decision is that we could push forward that * partner organizations are ONLY recognized by Wikimedia Foundation * whilst chapters could finally push forward the idea that a new chapter has to be recognized by the network of chapter + WMF rather than WMF only. In short, a chapter could be an element of a network whilst a partner will be only a WMF partner and not necessarily accepted by the network of chapters. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. How would this benefit the movement? Best Bishakha ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set of partners (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with the chapters). These organizations have developped a specific relationship with a chapter. Typically in France, associations will be members of each other and make sure to support each other when needed (communication, money, technical support). These partners do not become, by heritage, partners of another chapter or WMF. It seems totally logical and positive that WMF develops on its side a similar network of partners, which do not mean that these organizations should become mandatorily partners to all chapters. Right ? In short, this describe a collection of bubbles, some overlapping, others not overlapping. This flexibility is good and make sense. In my view, a chapter should have no obligations toward these other organizations. Maybe will it work with them, maybe not. It will depend on the focus of the partner and very likely on its geography. But there will be no obligations. Relationships will occur based on interest and proximity. On the other hand, I feel that chapters are more closely linked. It is my feeling and it may not be everyone feeling :) But in my view, if a chapter is struggling to start, I feel like others chapters do have a sort of duty to help it. If an international meeting is organized somewhere, I think chapters will somehow feel a duty to help the less wealthy chapters to join because they will feel it is important that all chapters be there. This sense of belonging, of having not only benefits but also obligations, can work well when there are 10 chapters. It is already stretched when there are 40 chapters. I am not quite sure it will still work when there will be 80 chapters. I feel that the feeling of belonging to a family, solidarity and the certainty that it makes sense to have chapters in most places in the world, would feed on chapters somehow having a say in which chapters are actually welcome as chapters. I think that a feeling of solidarity and sharing will be facilitated if chapters felt more involved in the decision making of who is part and who is not part of the network. One if left with the question of whether it is good for the mouvement that chapters have a feeling of solidarity toward one another. Well, I do think it will be a benefit to maintain this link of solidarity. I do not think this would be very hard to achieve. Probably only two main points to implement 1) a chapter committee which would be a mix bag of WMF and chapters representants (some tweaks) 2) a set of requirement (this is already set up; nothing special to do) 2) a charter that would be commonly agreed by all organizations and signed by new chapters (it can very well start very very very simple and be improved over time) Hope that unwrap the head :) Flo ___ 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 2/13/12 3:56 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 14:54, Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.com wrote: I take it you are aware that each chapter developped over time its own set of partners (similar-minded organizations that have overlapping goals with the chapters). These organizations have developped a specific relationship with a chapter. Typically in France, associations will be members of each other and make sure to support each other when needed (communication, money, technical support). These partners do not become, by heritage, partners of another chapter or WMF. It seems totally logical and positive that WMF develops on its side a similar network of partners, which do not mean that these organizations should become mandatorily partners to all chapters. Right ? In short, this describe a collection of bubbles, some overlapping, others not overlapping. This flexibility is good and make sense. In my view, a chapter should have no obligations toward these other organizations. Maybe will it work with them, maybe not. It will depend on the focus of the partner and very likely on its geography. But there will be no obligations. Relationships will occur based on interest and proximity. On the other hand, I feel that chapters are more closely linked. It is my feeling and it may not be everyone feeling :) But in my view, if a chapter is struggling to start, I feel like others chapters do have a sort of duty to help it. If an international meeting is organized somewhere, I think chapters will somehow feel a duty to help the less wealthy chapters to join because they will feel it is important that all chapters be there. This sense of belonging, of having not only benefits but also obligations, can work well when there are 10 chapters. It is already stretched when there are 40 chapters. I am not quite sure it will still work when there will be 80 chapters. I feel that the feeling of belonging to a family, solidarity and the certainty that it makes sense to have chapters in most places in the world, would feed on chapters somehow having a say in which chapters are actually welcome as chapters. I think that a feeling of solidarity and sharing will be facilitated if chapters felt more involved in the decision making of who is part and who is not part of the network. One if left with the question of whether it is good for the mouvement that chapters have a feeling of solidarity toward one another. Well, I do think it will be a benefit to maintain this link of solidarity. I do not think this would be very hard to achieve. Probably only two main points to implement 1) a chapter committee which would be a mix bag of WMF and chapters representants (some tweaks) 2) a set of requirement (this is already set up; nothing special to do) 2) a charter that would be commonly agreed by all organizations and signed by new chapters (it can very well start very very very simple and be improved over time) Hope that unwrap the head :) The sense of belonging and solidarity is undermined by the position that Wikimedia organization requires country behind itself. Not all of us share position that two Wikimedian groups can cooperate just if both are symbolically linked to the state structure. That's ideologically biased and, unfortunately, not biased by our common ideology, free access to knowledge. While associations and affiliates don't sound as in-movement organizations, partner organizations and chapters sound like it. Quite possibly. Well, I am not sure if I remember well the arguments exactly (those who do, please help) * we supported chapter creation covering a geographical area rather than not mostly because a legal entity ought to be linked to a nation legal system. Nation being in the larger sense. It really ought to be either a state (as in USA), or a country (such as France) or a larger but legal entity (such Europe) * I think we suggested that we should not have more than one legal entity over the same territory essentially because of 1) the fight it could create in terms of fundraising and 2) the confusion it would create in outsiders (journalists, politicans, etc.) about who should be contacted for what Well... with regards to fundraising, the fight is already there and it is likely that most chapters will no more be allowed through wikimedia projects websites. They could still fundraise through social media, their websites and so on. If donors can stand the confusion between giving to a chapter or to WMF, then they can probably stand the confusion between giving to a chapter and to a partner organization. So, this ground for disagreement is likely to decrease anyway. The other argument was about the contact. For those of you who were already around in 2004-2005, one of the big problems we had is that journalists were lost in our hierarchy (or absence thereof). Who should they be contacted ? Who had authority to speak in the name of ? Who could make a decision on
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On 2/13/12 11:04 PM, Joan Goma wrote: From: Florence Devouardanthe...@yahoo.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Message-ID:jhar77$4kl$1...@dough.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 2/13/12 8:45 AM, Mathias Damour wrote: Why would both Associations and Affiliates both need to use Wikimedia marks ? Does OpenStreetMap need it if it gets some grants from the WMF ? I hope that these models won't be used to softly downgrade (or threaten to downgrade) chapters that would be said not having their bylaws and mission aligned with Wikimedia's. Very likely. But it is does not really matter actually because this decision is a clear sign that Chapters do not really exist anymore except on the paper. Chance is that the concept will disappear within the next couple of year, simply because it will become a concept redondant with partner organizations. I think you (and many other people expressing concerns about those new models) are too optimistic about them and too pessimistic about Chapters. I wish we had a lot of problems because there where lots of people wiling to join new chapters ans new models. I would be extremely happy to help unfolding that kind of mess. But my immediate concern is that hummm I fail to really see the difference between the 4 cases. Could we have some examples of each to better see what the difference is ? I think nobody can give examples because there are not cases yet. But from my participation in movement roles group I understand that the differences come from 3 parameters: a)Registered organizations / Informal groups b)Geography focused / Non geography focused c)Their main goal is Wikimedia Projects / They have other goals that benefit us. Then the classification comes like this: 1)Chapters: Registered / Geography / Wikimedia 2)Partner Organizations: Registered / Non Geography / Wikimedia 3)Associations: Informal / Geography or not / Wikimedia 4)Affiliated: Registered / Geography or not / Other So in Associations we can have Chapters to be and Partner Organizations to be. And some may be Associations for ever not reaching the status of a registered entity if they don’t feel the need. (Perhaps the term Association is not the best and something like “Wiki-Group” would be better) :) Association in French means uncorporated non profit. Wikimedia France is an... association For example, since you mention OpenStreetMap would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ? Or, Amical, would that rather be a partner or an affiliate ? Regarding Amical my personal opinion is that they are highly flexible. First they proposed a transnational chapter operating in 4 countries, later they sent a mail to the board saying they would have a national chapter for Andorra, later they proposed a sub-national chapter in Spain. Now probably they can fit in the Partner Organization model. You know they are highly thankful to you because you find a place for them to participate in Wikilovemsonuments.[1] I think Partner Organization can be a solution for them like when you invented the therm “Local area” They were not interested in any name nor position in the list their only interest where participating in Wikilovesmonuments with the same tools and same freedom than any body else. They are not interested in any kind of exclusivity, they are not interested in the name “National Chapter”, their only interest is being able to support and promote the Catalan projects with the same tools and same freedom you have to promote French ones. I am surprised by your use of they [1] Before this change there was an edit war with people erasing their participation because they were not a chapter and others including them. Then Floence created a place for them and from then everybody was happy: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AWiki_Loves_Monuments_2011action=historysubmitdiff=49614457oldid=49607752 Indeed :) FLorence ___ 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
Indeed Yaroslav I agree these are concerns and it is likely no solution will ever be perfect. I think the best way to limit (not avoid) such concerns is to make the process as transparent as possible. This one is quite a challenge since one of the key point in the process is that the name of reviewers are kept confidential to allow them to be plain honest in their review. We may not be able to do that since it is not so much in our culture. The abuse of the system that I have personally witnessed is one related to COI. I have been wondering how strategic committee was populated. My memory is that it was represented by three types of people * representants of major labs (mostly from Paris) * representants from majors industrial actors (eg, France Telecom) * individual experts The desire to have several representants of major industrial actors is an explicite choice. The gouvernment wanted to make sure that money given to fund research would have industrial outcomes. Even though some very fundamental projects end up being funded, putting many industrial in the committee is a good way to ensure that most funded projects would be practical with some real-life outcomes and economical benefits in the end. As for the fact of having experts from major paris-based labs, I think it was not necessarily a explicite choice. I think it rather come from facility. France is largely focused on its capital (the rest of the country is easily considered by the government to be peasants). Financially speaking, it is more effective to invite someone working 10 mn walks from the meeting place than 5 hours train. And last, people living in Paris are more likely to lobby ANR to be part of the committee. Of course, I am projecting there and it may be more complex, but this is the impression I got. (as Wikimedians, we could well imagine that major chapters will in effect have members of the chapters on the FDC just because it is easier and more effective than having members of a new-born far-away chapter. This will not necessarily be an explicite choice but will simply naturally happen. However, as Wikimedia, we could well imagine that if we want to put a specific focus in terms of funding on ... say... Africa and women... it would probably make sense to put on the committee people interested in Africa and in women. That would be an explicite choice) The one type of abuse I have witnessed was this one. Imagine the 20 experts of the strategy committee in the room, ranking projects list A and list B. Project P is considered. Unfortunately, one of the experts is not only an expert but also involved in Project P or is possibly working in one of the company involved in Project P. He announces a COI and leave the room. In apparence, all is fine. In reality, there is another expert in the room, involved in Project J with the same COI situation. Before the meeting, the two experts agreed that they will mutually support the other expert project. So in the end, their COI was poorly handled. I am not quite sure we can really avoid this situation. The other point that is slightly annoying is that terms of experts are limited to two years. Consequently, individual experts can only be there 2 years and be done with it. However, big industrial actors (eg, France Telecom) will always have somebody to propose so the organization itself will be on that committee, regardless of the 2 years terms. Of course, one might argue that FT needs to be on that committee anyway since it is an actor you may not do without, but in this case, the choice of limiting terms for individuals is rather dishonnest and not helping. Practically speaking, if an individual is a fabulous expert on robotics, it is unfortunate to refuse his help after two years based on a question of terms limitation if he is still willing and helpful. (I do not need to make any parallele with some wikimedia chapters right ?) These were the other points which came to my mind as I read your answers. On 2/10/12 12:35 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: Florence, I think you gave a great description of the process, and I agree that we should aim at the degree of transparency achieved in it. Actually, if I would be in charge of setting such a review panel, this is close to how I would do it. However, I also have similar personal experience. I am an academic researcher, and I also participated in such panels on many occasions - as a panel member, as a referee, and, obviously, as an applicant. I do not claim I fully understand all the details, which also vary case-to-case, but there are a couple of things I learned from my participation, and it is probably good to list them here. 1) If I am a panel member and I want to kill a proposal (for instance, for personal reasons), it is fairly easy. I just need to find an issue which experts did not comment on and represent it like a very serious issue. If there is another panel member who
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations Sourcing
On 2/23/12 7:29 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote: On Thursday 23 February 2012 01:10 AM, Thomas Morton wrote: Splitting this off, Achal, I hope that's OK :) There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance, which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/** Noticeboard#Oral_Citationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Oral_Citations Thanks for the pointer there; I'll try and place some comments in there later. It is certainly an interesting discussion. But here are some initial thoughts (please bear in mind I have only scanned that discussion, and whilst I have had an ongoing interest in the oral citations project I never dug into in too much depth). Also remember this is based on my interpretation of our policies, so others may well differ! Can I ask you how you would analyse the work of the oral citations project (http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Research:Oral_Citationshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations) in terms of our policies on original research, and verifiability? The best way I can address this is to lay out my thoughts on our sourcing policy. Material on Wikipedia can be divided into fact and opinion. The latter of these is, perhaps confusingly, the simplest to address; because opinion, viewpoints and perception can quite easily be collated and summarised. The only real difficulty exists in figuring out which opinions are noteworthy to record. The problem is facts; as I am sure everyone can appreciate, facts are very easy to get wrong (maliciously or not). This is especially a problem in History where events can be pieced together via all manner of sources. Even WW2 history can differ dramatically depending on the accounts you read - some overuse oral citation (humans are fallible) and others misuse official records (which can range from faked through to inaccurate). The problem with primary sourcing of the oral form is that it comes directly from an individual - with all of their perceptions and biases. To make an extreme example out of this; imagine taking an oral citation from Hitler, and a Jew in a concentration camp. Such citations would, I imagine, give radically different viewpoints of the Holocaust. Obviously other accounts, by third parties, show us which account is accurate - but if we had only those two viewpoints I hope it is obvious how difficult separating fact and fiction could be (ignoring that any rational person would see the obvious). Of course. So, for the oral citations project, we specifically chose topics that are in the present, that are seen and done by thousands of people (i.e. not obscure), and that are also as uncontroversial as possible. Examples: village games, temple rituals, recipes. So that brings us to the ideas behind sourcing; which is that we should consider not only the material but author and publisher. This is important because if the author of the source is partisan to the material then you have to consider they may be biased to their viewpoint. As less extreme example might be two citations from a Republican and a Democrat. Both say My Party is the Best because our policies are... - you can't use either source to say one party is better, because they are partisan. But you could use it to relate their parties policies; and as partisans they are well positioned to relate those policies! If the author is a third party, of course, that lends weight to their material. The publisher is the stumbling block in this case; because it is a non-expert [sic] researcher uploading material to Commons. What could mitigate this is a detailed description of the methodology used to collect the citations, which would allow editors to review it for problems. One final thing to consider is that WP:V talks about controversial or challenged material. Whilst that might be a risk policy on the face (it would be easy to present something non-controversial but also not true as fact) it's critical to letting us actually write article (otherwise we would be stifled in citations :)). For example; I've sourced material to personal sites before with minimal problems - sometimes it is questioned and what I usually say is If you can show someone saying the opposite, or make a sensible argument against, then lets remove it. (FWIW, and this is an aside, I think is relaxed form to building articles is a Good Thing, and we should do it more often - worrying about being wrong is stifling). So now I've picked it apart here is my thinking; Oral citations on Commons could be excellent sources in the right context. :) Sure if the material is disputed or otherwise problematic then it is better to look for a source that has peer review. But for simplistic, factual things then I think it is rock solid. One example that comes to mind (and I don't know if the Oral citations covers this sort of thing) is this: I was recently on
Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations Sourcing
On 2/25/12 2:12 AM, Castelo wrote: On 24-02-2012 07:48, Ziko van Dijk wrote: Leave the use of historical sources to historians, and then cite from their books. That's what historians are for. Kind regards Ziko Ziko, there's a lack of historians writing books outside Europe/US, specially on some traditional oral history. They love to write about what other historians like, and the unpublished content remains unpublished. If i understood correctly, Oral Citations Project doesn't intend to replace books. Its focus is on what is not covered by books. Amike, Castelo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Most companies do not get a dedicated historian to deal with their own archives. Few historian do that as volunteers, and many companies just do not spend money on this type of activity. Florence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia France position on fundraising
Please find on Wikimedia France position regarding chapter fundraising in France in the coming years. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_France/Fundraising_letter_March_2012 Please keep feedback and comments for meta rather than lists. Thanks Florence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
