On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 July 2011 20:07, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse -
the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and
could cooperative in mutually
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Keegan Peterzell
keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
In reply overall-- I definitely agree that Wikipedia is, by far, our
strongest brand-- and a very different brand than the one that would
be served by a wider unnamed movement.
I haven't been anywhere near as
So happy to see all the helpful responses!
So, it seems like I only have two mode of communication: Verbose and
clear or Brief but confusing. My email starting this thread was
brief, let's try the other style.
Executive Summary:
The Wikimedia Movement is a really big deal that is exploding
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
If I understand Alec right he wants a model wherein a project like
WikiSomething can declare itself affiliated with Wikimedia:
We need a name for self-identified project affiliation. External
projects needs
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 20:41, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote:
Informally, and in my own mind, I tend to think of like-minded free
culture wiki sites as part of a broader Wiki Knowledge movement.
Of course,
One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their
website, This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia
Movement. (alternate text welcome )
That would be a trademark violation. We should protect our trademarks.
We don't want them associated with just any project.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:17 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
This is indeed one of the greatest suggestion I have heard in a long
time. Having people add Part of the Wikimedia Movement would benefit
both parties. All of us here I think support free knowledge wherever
it is found.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
I dislike the idea of making it ultra-accessible for basically anyone to
stick Part of the Wikimedia Movement on their website - it serves little
purpose (per se) and you are going to get the vast majority of
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
As for the name-- this looks like a job for experts.
Perhaps - though with that said when I am programming it is often my
only-slightly-technically minded work colleages who come up with ideas for
the
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:56 PM, effe iets anders
effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow. That was a long read. Some very interesting points, I hope you will
forgive me if I ignore most.
I'm so happy anyone found it worth reading! It's quite tome-ish .
I do want to stress a few things. There is
My point (working in an academic digital library and just seeing the amount
of thesis, dissertation, articles passing by) is that if for people is a
difficult, overcomplicated burden to upload a PDF in an institutional
repository (5 minutes of their time, even less), how can we wikilibrarians
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'll go further-- provided we can do so cheaply, I want new projects
that are like the ridiculous early failures of flight.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OJvv4LG9M]. I want to hear about a
new WMF project
Prompted by discussions in another thread, I ask a related question--
;1-- A roadmap towards affiliation
How should a currently-unaffiliated project go about becoming 'part
of' Wikimedia?
One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their
website, This site considers itself to be
Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us
have access to.
As a sort of aside-- everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes
people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their
agenda.
I've always wondered if we couldn't peel off' the people who
You can always make Wikinfo a sister project.
Fred
That would be a rather elegant solution, wouldn't it.
At a minimum, recognizing Wikinfo as Part of the Wikimedia Movement
and incorporating links to it into our controversial articles.And
then a next nice step would be if Wikinfo could
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:45 PM, David Richfield
davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
The system of charging readers for distribution of scientific information is
fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia demonstrates that it is cheap to host data.
Reviewers don't get paid. Companies pay plenty to advertise
Remember that en:wp's no original research rule was invented for
physics cranks. And even with fairly light moderation, arXiv features
some spectacularly gibbering [[green ink]]. This will need some
thought to create something that's actually useful to anyone,
anywhere, ever.
A free journal
Clarify: I mean new namespaces are the best way forward for our
Meta-type content (Strategy:, Outreach:, Research:, etc).
Thanks,
Richard
Thanks for clarifying Richard. I agree with merging those meta
projects together.
Right now, we're host to an assortment of projects, a collection of
That discussion was interesting for this one, because it brings up issues
such as that merging even a relatively small wiki like ten (565 content
pages, 3,204 total pages) into Meta would probably take some considerable
work.
We need to lower barriers to cross-project collaboration.A
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
Ah, but you don't return when you click on a link that exists both on
Wikipedia and another wiki.
Not only that, but you miss out on a huge set of features. You can't
have shared user account names across wikis, you
Why do people want ten Wikipedias to look up instead of one?
Why would people want millions of computers instead of just eight?
Why would we want terabytes of memory when we could have just 640
kilobytes? When I go to the library, why are there a gazillion
books, instead of just the best book?
Sometimes templates used on different wikis can be incompatible.
Fred
We really are starting to need a global template space for
multiwiki, potentially multilingual templates, that can be transcluded
into any mediawiki install we want to allow.
A Commons for templates.
if you talk to the press, or to media experts, they all know
Wikipedia but not Wikimedia. The most simple and reasonable way is
to use the famous brand, not to invest in Wikimedia.
There's an even bigger opportunity here--
Make a brand new brand name that captures the ideology better than
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 07/01/2011 09:15 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Per HaeB's link, this is a perennial proposal. People like the idea,
but in eighteen years - back as far as the Interpedia proposal, before
wikis existed - no-one has made one
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
*Call for referendum*: The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the
Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of
the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in
One *big* problem we have now is: Wikipedia has won. Wikipedia is the
encyclopedia anyone actually consults, ever. Wikipedia now defines
what an encyclopedia is in popular conception.
So we don't have any tail-lights to chase. What sets our direction?
Well, this is now completely and utterly
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:35 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Adapting MediaWiki to git has been tried a few times. I suspect the
problem is that the software deeply assumes a database behind it, not
a version-controlled file tree. Wrong model for an easy fix to
MediaWiki itself.
It looks like we understand the potential risks of adding social
features, but I don't know that the merits have sunk in.
==Don't call it a Social Network, don't think of it as a revolution==
Th first thing to do is banish the word Social Network from the
discussion. Social Network evokes
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
As we did not know the extend to which we generally edit in many languages,
we have not considered the needs of this majority. Our view has always been
on single projects. We can do better and we should do better
If it is technically viable, I would love to see some way to create such
projects (standalone or not)
Do we have any data on the resource usage of a creating a new
standalone project? If it's, as I expect, relatively trivial, then
why not make a simplified dutch project? The worst that
I imagine that having non-US GLAMs undersand that the foundation wants
to be able to ignore what they regard as their more legitimate
copyright claims will be really helpful.
It's not about ignoring legitimate copyright claims-- we can always
decide for ourselves what is a legitimate
Such works belong to our global knowledge.
You can't copyright knowledge. The usual term used there is culture.
Clearly, you can copyright knowledge, for a time. True, you can't
copyright facts or scientific laws (yet)-- but some forms of knowledge
absolutely get copyrighted, and they're
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:27 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 June 2011 01:18, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote:
why. It's not that we're 'novel currency enthusiasts', it's not that
we're trying to undermine the US federal reserve or anything crazy or
overtly political
Let me chime in here. Starting at the basic sentiment:
At the end of the day, things have moved on without incident but lets not
simply ignore this issue. I think that there is something to be learnt and
its that care really does need to be taken when repeating a venture like
this.
That's kinda
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not good enough to just do things right, you need
to be seen to do things right.
I just can't emphasize Thomas's point enough. I spent a lot of words
trying to say what he was able to say in a single sentence.
On Bitcoin-- we (and the web in general) desperately need a
zero-overhead micropayment system of some kind. I can't help but
think our fundraising efforts would be helped if people would able to,
on impulse and without premeditation, donate $1 to WMF in thanks for
particular articles and have
I'm so overjoyed to see we've taken this step! Good work Board,
Staff, Counsel, and everyone else!!!
It always seemed our obvious destiny to lend a helping hand to
important issues like this, I'm really really happy that this day has
arrived.
Is there anything we can do, in practical terms, to
Congrats Ting, Sj and Kat on your re-election.
Congrats to all the participants, particularly the three re-elected incumbents:
I think this was the single most predictable single outcome-- we can
poke and prod individual candidates, but collectively, _as a board_ ,
they've never done anything
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Harel Cain harel.c...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing the board might want to concern itself with now is how to allow
for more change in the next elections, in other words how to counteract the
built-in advantages of the incumbent(s), which in the board elections is
A few candidates are what I might call 'outsider candidates' in that
they weren't well known across projects before the election and thus
may not be likely to win election to such a democratically-elected
position-- but they seem to have quite a lot to offer us.
If they are elected, we'll have
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/01/2011 11:11 PM, FT2 wrote:
Information is educational.
I fully agree with you. Any information is educational;
I also strongly agree that any information is educational. The two
terms are synonymous.
We use
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The resolution could be read as CYA - an intentionally deflective
statement with no concrete impact.
I feel that basically _is_ the role of the board. I feel like my
dream board personified is a little like a judo master. When
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
What I'd ask the Board is this: what do you expect the impact of such
a resolution (referring again specifically to the image content
resolution) will be? By restating the ideology that the projects are
not censored in one
I just wanted to write in to compliment all those who are behind the
banners on the site right now-- Personal Appeals from individual
editors with inspiring visions about how Wikimedia can help change the
world for the better.
This, to me, is is what a 'Wikimedia Fundraiser' should feel like--
Hi all. Thanks so much for all the encouragement my last email received.
Replying to Ting's:
Point 1-- NOTCENSORED isn't what you think it is:
So, the first thing to realize is that our NOTCENSORED policies are
far more narrow than you seem to suspect:
• In the case of traditional
I have no idea whether anything in here is productive or just
reiteration of the same old themes. I doubt it will be coherent or
persuasive, but this discussion is too important not to try to say
something. Opinions were solicited, so here's such an opinion.
I don't really know if a
Hi Sue--
Thank you so so much for that reply, it was really really appreciated.
I also wanted to say -- you know in your post where you speculate about why
this is
happening now, is it because of the fundraising, has someone offered board
members jobs,
etc. (I know you were mostly
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
I've just now removed virtually all permissions to actually do
things from the Founder flag.
I appreciate this step, but the community has now firmly rejected your
continued status as Founder flagged-- you have not been
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I was just about to post about the need to assure the commons community
that there would be no repeat performance.
That need is still there, Kim.
Just in case anyone hasn't noticed, Jimbo kept his power to give
himself
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I would like to point out that the board's position and power is somewhat
precarious at this point in time. They need to move quickly but
*carefully*, should they wish to retain it. The cannot afford to get
back on
After his initial deletion spree, there were widespread objections from
the community. In many different forums, hundreds of users registered
their objections. By the time Jimbo returned, nearly 100 users had
signed a statement calling for his Founder Flag powers to be
removed.
In response,
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Adam Cuerden cuer...@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo never revealed the reasons he was doing this - the FOX News
attacks - until after he did them, and it was a fait accompli.
He actively worked to mislead the community about the reasons and
goals of his actions.
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
There's also no urgent legal issue driving any changes to Commons -- we
don't have reason to believe any category of content we knowingly carry on
Commons is definitionally illegal under U.S. law. (Obviously, when if people
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Larry Pieniazek
l...@miltontrainworks.com wrote:
The problem is that the community isn't in charge of anything. Time and
again we've seen that without precipitious action, the consensus process
stalls out.
I've seen Jimbo make this argument as well. Say, in
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:09 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 May 2010 01:04, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote:
(1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography
distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free
55 matches
Mail list logo
