Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 58
Béria, I was not calling you out as the only person doing this, you just happened to be the most recent. Certainly we have a tradition in my country of shortening names as well (or just adding the suffix -o or -za to them, so that John becomes Johnno or Barry becomes Bazza), but I would never presume to call you B or Bério or something like that without first being invited to do so. In this case, Jan-Bart has made it abundantly clear that he prefers to be called Jan-Bart and not some other name, so we should leave it at that. Cheers, Craig Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:09:27 -0200 From: B?ria Lima berial...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Message-ID: CAA2XHjBs-3Xkn1yhztoBUwFzPs_KpuhWyQeoH0pYjcy3=je...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Gom? called him Jan at least 3 times today and no one complained. Everyone in Brazil calls me B (yah, just the first letter) and here is VERY common to shortening people's names. Is more a way to write it fast than to offend anyone. I can call him Mister de Vreede if you all find this ok, but that would be even more condescending (In my country we only threat people we really dislike by their last name). _ *B?ria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 15 February 2012 23:09, Craig Franklin cr...@halo-17.net wrote: I had wanted to keep out of this, but this is the third or fourth time that Jan-Bart has been referred to as Jan. It was an understandable enough mistake to make the first time, but it's been pointed out enough now that that is no longer an excuse. We do not all have to be best of mates, but it is not unreasonable that we all should show some basic courtesy towards each other, and taking the time to get each other's names right would be a good start. If you feel that Jan-Bart is being condescending towards you, the best solution to that problem is not more condescension thrown back in the opposite direction. Cheers, Craig ___ 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
I had wanted to keep out of this, but this is the third or fourth time that Jan-Bart has been referred to as Jan. It was an understandable enough mistake to make the first time, but it's been pointed out enough now that that is no longer an excuse. We do not all have to be best of mates, but it is not unreasonable that we all should show some basic courtesy towards each other, and taking the time to get each other's names right would be a good start. If you feel that Jan-Bart is being condescending towards you, the best solution to that problem is not more condescension thrown back in the opposite direction. Cheers, Craig Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:07:23 -0200 From: B?ria Lima berial...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 Message-ID: caa2xhjag+ummrkskhe82hatxkocycxm_tsmkb6nmn36mkdj...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Jan Provide me a link to work and I will gladly tell on wiki how much your idea sucks and how I come up with a better one without dismiss community opinion and being condescending like you. Here we can't solve anything. _ *B?ria Lima ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement: Building a new Legal and Community Advocacy Department Promotion of Philippe Beaudette
Hi All, Firstly, congratulations to Phillipe on a very richly deserved promotion! I'm sure that you will do very well in your new role. However, I must concur with Lodewijk in stating that the idea behind the new department is still not entirely clear to me. It's not about advocacy and lobbying (except when it is), but I'm not sure what else it is supposed to do or why it's organisationally near the legal department? If the purpose is primarily to advocate on behalf of the community internally within WMF, would that be because you feel that the voice of the community has not been heard clearly in the Foundation previously? If so, this is a step forward but it's regrettable that input from the community hasn't been something that's been institutionally considered in the past. Cheers, Craig From: Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org To: phili...@wikimedia.org Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement: Building a new Legal and Community Advocacy Department Promotion of Philippe Beaudette Message-ID: CACf6BesiWT8F+4JsdV_=yf++do-jhszhxmztar-favg-vyp...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Philippe, it sounds great. Awesome. But still, it doesn't make much sense to me, sorry. Saying people can 'edit' is of course bound to cheer people up - but if you don't understand *what* you're editing, it is also bound to either become a mess, or either just become what you pick it to become. I can't suggest changes to team or actions if I am unable to grasp behind the very broadly stated goals. Right now it is clear who is in the team, but honestly I don't know you guys well enough to derive from that what you should be doing. Lodewijk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Bosnia's Top Cultural Institutions Shutting Down
Message: 7 Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 01:25:33 +0400 From: Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Bosnia's Top Cultural Institutions Shutting Down To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: fd4d5a6d2d4cf1db823bfb1df349c...@mccme.ru Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 22:13:58 +0100, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/1/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com On 7 January 2012 20:12, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: The Historical Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina holds 400,000 artifacts. Any National Cultural Institution closing is a disaster. Yes, it is. So what's the game plan? I'm not sure. If the WMF goals are to collect/preserve/disseminate educational content, they can start with the holdings in endangered cultural institutions. It is not my work, but some suggestions, from low to high involvement: * blog post exposing the events * a call to the museums, showing that we are concerned * offering wikimedia projects to host any materials they want to give * marathon to create related articles * organize a Wiki Invades... to take photos and notes of the collections * wikipedian in residence and put some money to fund some activities * any other high profile partnership And read international news related to our long-term goals. Regards, emijrp May be checking with WM Serbia (I am not sure they can do anything, but it would be good to know) and leaving a message on Serbian Wikipedia asking for advise/clarification/actions. Everybody can leave this message, but probably the most efficient would be to find someone who speaks Serbian. Cheers Yaroslav I might just be a crypto-American chauvinist (and really, that sort of inflammatory message is completely unnecessary on this list), so I apologise for any ignorance on the situation, but would Wikimedia Serbia really be the best organisation to help out here. My understanding is that Bosnia-Serbia relations are still very... delicate... and a Serbian organisation coming in to help out with Bosnian cultural artefacts, no matter how well meaning, might not get the most enthusiastic of receptions. Cheers, Craig ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A fundraiser for editors
Message: 5 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:08:12 -0800 From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A fundraiser for editors To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: caeg6zhnkby06gfczheviwu-xakg-p5t+n0gxzmv--cdyhoy...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 8:53 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: The fundraiser for money has been working exceedingly well with our number of donors increasing 10 fold since 2008. What we need now is a fundraiser for editors. I meet well educated professionals who use Wikipedia but have no ideas that they can edit it. We need to run a banner with the same energy we use to raise money to raise editor numbers. This idea has been trialed to a limited extent here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Invitation_to_edit but the effort did not have sufficient data crunching behind it to determine if it works. James, thanks for this note! The problem, as I see it, is that we know that new editors, once they attempt to make their first edit, hit an enormous number of barriers. Even if they master mark-up (which is a big IF), they're likely to fail when their edits get reverted due to lack of proper citations or other issues. I'd just like to echo this. As part of Wikimedia Australia's outreach programmes, I've done more than a few academies, and once we get them to write their articles initially in the user space, the #1 problem by far we encounter is difficulty with the markup and editing interface. One comment that I received (from a PhD, no less) was along the lines of Wow, this is a throwback, like editing text in the old MS-DOS days. I keep an enthusiastic eye out for the WYSIWYG editor, and it does look like it's bubbling along quite nicely. It won't solve all of the problems, but I think that once it is complete and implemented, we will see an increase in the retention rates of editors, particularly editors who are not traditionally considered to be computer power users, or who have not had the benefit of growing up with this sort of technology. Regards, Craig Franklin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 93, Issue 61
Message: 1 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:52:03 +0100 From: Jan Ku?era kozuc...@gmail.com Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia's secret wikis To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: ca+n47w+4f+kkwrvpvaxqfyfeo1ljpfm7omouayzp4vctmiu...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I see following wikis hold secred information: http://internal.wikimedia.org http://office.wikimedia.org http://board.wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can NOT freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Having access to some of these secret Wikis, let me assure you that the content of most of them is banal, dull, and there are no juicy chunks of conspiratorial information in there. But they also contain the sort of information that can't go into the public sphere, such as private contact details and other information. But then again, I suppose that's just what I *would* say, right? Cheers, Craig Franklin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove
Personally, I find the whole WikiLove extension to be a bit naff and schmaltzy. I'm generally not thrilled when I get a WikiLove kitten or anything, just like I'm not touched that my local member of Parliament has thought to send me a form letter about how hard they're working for me. It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it. With that said though, if a particular project community decides they don't want it, why should it be forced upon them? I think this principle should apply to *all* extensions, not just harmless or global improvement ones. Cheers, Craig Message: 1 Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 22:57:25 +0300 From: Mateus Nobre mateus.no...@live.co.uk Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: snt121-w28cdc17a85796201e442febf...@phx.gbl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Etienne, Why any Wikipedia would not want the Wikilove feature? This is inconsistent for me. Wikilove's a global improvement, there's no reason to disagree improvements. _ MateusNobre Wikimedia Brasil - MetalBrasil on Wikimedia projects (+55) 85 88393509 30440865 Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 12:31:24 -0300 From: betie...@bellaliant.net To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Show community consensus for Wikilove But if we enable it at a wiki that doesn't want it, there could be a boycott, and vandals just get the place up to there code. It would be very detrimental to wikipedia. On 11-10-29 12:27 PM, Nickanc Wikipedia nickanc.w...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO, Wikilove is something so important about wikipedia's ethics and behaviour that shall be in every wiki. IMHO. 2011/10/29 WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com: Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:31:07 -0700 From: Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4eab2d2b.3020...@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 10/28/11 3:27 PM, Etienne Beaule wrote: It's disabled on certain wikis because of technical problems. Oh? I wasn't aware that it had been disabled anywhere as yet. WikiLove was not rolled out en mass; the policy for deployment of the tool is that it is by request only, and the requesting wiki must: a) Make sure the tool is localized (via TranslateWiki); b) Make sure they have a local configuration; and c) Show community consensus. So if it was enabled and then *disabled*, I have not heard of this. Is there a bug report I can look to? Or if you know of a wiki where this is the case, I can do a search. Thanks! -b. -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate Good to hear that wikilove is only going in on wikis where there is consensus for it. Can anyone give me a link to the discussion that established consensus on EN wikipedia? The nearest I could find was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archi ve_33#Thoughts_on_WikiLove.3F Ta WerepielChequers ___ 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] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:58:51 -0700 From: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: CAGZ0=ln0xlr-0a0ajocu-7ex1bkqfynvv5xetqy5uy9lqdu...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The Wikimedia Foundation first heard about this a few hours ago: we don't have a lot of details yet. Jay is gathering information and working on a statement now. It seems obvious though that the proposed law would hurt freedom of expression in Italy, and therefore it's entirely reasonable for the Italian Wikipedians to oppose it. The Wikimedia Foundation will support their position. The question of whether blocking access to Wikipedia is the best possible way to draw people's attention to this issue is of course open for debate and reasonable people can disagree. My understanding is that the decision was taken via a good community process. Regardless, what's done is done, for the moment. Thanks, Sue Of late I've often round reasons to be critical of the choices the WMF has made, but in this case you've made the best choice possible - supporting the community on it.wikipedia in a decision that they've come to as a group, even though that decision is controversial in some places. Bravo Sue, and Bravo WMF. Cheers, Craig ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 90, Issue 121
I'd caution against putting too much faith in those raw numbers without a clear understanding of what they mean. They can make sense comparing different language editions of the same project, but comparing different projects is apples and oranges. For instance, some months ago I was doing some research and I found that for Wikisource it doesn't count the Page and Index namespaces as articles, even though that's where the bulk of the content generation is taking place these days. This might have since been fixed, and I'm sure that you (Phillipe) are aware of it, I just wanted to jump in before someone started complaining that Wikinews is only a certain unimpressive %age of where Wikipedia was at the same point. Cheers, Craig Message: 5 Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:49:01 -0700 From: Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Minor projects withering and dying? Really? To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: capb+ky-o0e0fqgnf0lbwlsbogfo6y5w+2wq-gqy1a4t013_...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Usage statistics alone, I would agree with you. But stats can tell so much more than just what you get from usage stats. For instance: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikinews/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm (be sure to scroll all the way to the right). ___ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: On 09/20/11 10:11 PM, ?? wrote: Certain projects are bound to loose active contributors. Projects like Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikispecies or even Wiktionary do not have the same growth curve as a general purpose encyclopedia. These tools have serious competition as well. Statistically looking at numbers is unwise unless you are going to look at it with a perspective. This is not to say these projects are without problem, but that doesn't mean the wikis are failures. This is all very true. The important thing is to keep focused on your own project. If you look at competing projects, rather than looking at their usage statistics, a better question is What are they failing to do that you could do better? Ray ___ 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] foundation-l Digest, Vol 90, Issue 23
Let me again say that it's great that the foundation actually asked editors what they thought. Clearly the actual design of the survey left much to be desired - people wanted a question along the lines of is this filter a good idea (y/n), and didn't get one. I'm a bit disappointed that for as major a change in direction as this, ten trustees decided it was such a good idea that they didn't need to ask the community if they agreed; only for some details as to the scope of the technical tool. I think this is why we got the worst of all possible results; a stalemate with no clear answer one way or the other. Anyway, I'd like to see some of the trustees weighing in with their thoughts on the results of this referendum, since it's clear that we can argue until the sun goes dark but our opinions mean precisely nought with regards to the question of whether an image filter should be implemented. Cheers, Craig From: Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: cao5b2fsfnhdxf8ikr+yivrpjnfkcwhxhw2c4kob5ykqxdjz...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: That's only true if there is general agreement that the feature would be nice to have and there is just a question of whether it is worth the effort. That it not the case here. The referendum was pretty clearly predicated on the basis that the feature was going forward: The Board of Trustees has directed the Wikimedia Foundation to develop and implement a personal image hiding feature. [The referendum was held] to gather more input in to the development and usage of an opt-in personal image hiding feature. And from the resolution: We ask the Executive Director, in consultation with the community, to develop and implement a personal image hiding feature... (not We ask the Executive Director, so long as the can't-recognise-the-irony-in-fighting-censorship-by-stopping-people-choosing-what-they-want-to-see crowd gives their blessing, to develop and implement...) The questions are all relating to the development of the feature, save for the 'culturally neutral' question: the first is about how to prioritise it, and the others are about setting out the specs for the feature. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ 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
Message: 7 Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 22:43:35 +0200 From: Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 4e613ff7.3080...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 02.09.2011 22:02, Michael Snow wrote: 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. Meanwhile, on the subject of mutual board appointments between chapters and the foundation, I figured I'd chime in as I helped push the idea for chapters to select foundation board members in the first place. For one thing, there's a very different power dynamic between the chapters collectively choosing a couple members of the foundation's board, and the foundation solely choosing a member of an individual chapter's board. The chapter-appointed seats cannot really be controlled outside of the selection process itself, so those board members can act as freely as their colleagues, and certainly no single chapter can force them to act in a particular way. This is partly by design, since the ultimate fiduciary obligations of those board members are still to the foundation rather than a chapter, and is why we emphasized that they are not necessarily being selected as representatives of the chapters. However, somebody appointed to a chapter board by the foundation would be directly answerable to the foundation, and it could be fairly easy to argue that they are an agent of the foundation. It undermines the organizational independence much more dramatically. If the point is to improve communication, then a more practical approach might be to designate observers who are not given authority but merely sit in with a chapter board. That's assuming that the chapter board level is one of the places where it makes the most sense to add a communication interface. --Michael Snow It would have been sufficient to have some members that understand how chapters work. Every time I read some comments of WMF, I am really astonished that they don't know the basis of the organization of the chapters. I am really disturbed that every time WMF forget that a chapter is based on bylaws and on General Assembly. You make the assumption that it is the board of any chapter to take the decisions, you forget (but is seems to be usual in WMF) that any decision of the chapters board can be changed by the General Assembly and that the board reports to the General Assembly who approves every year the projects and the budget and the financial year. This is not a choice of the chapters, but this is the legal consequence connected with the local legal system (in Switzerland it's the Civil Code art.60). The chapter is not the WMF where the board send out a letter, the executive team makes an interpretation of the letter and the other groups do what they have decided. The local chapter is based on the General Assembly. It means that, to improve the communication, no one must seat in the board, it is sufficient to participate in the discussion of the General Assembly and it would be better to speak the local language to answer to the members questions. The board will do what the General Assembly decides. In the other hand what I really suggest is that the chapters MUST select their WMF board members like representatives to fill up the gaps that WMF has. The problem of communication that WMF has, it's basically the lacking knowledge of the chapters and to solve this problem probably WMF should have a look inside itself. Ilario Just to add to what Illario has said, I think it's important to remember that most (if not all) chapters are run via a democratic system where the entire board or committee is elected by its members. Appointing WMF members to boards would obviously dilute that democratic accountability. Indeed, in my chapter to have any power we'd have to change our constitution, and I don't see our members being overly sympathetic to having a perceived unelected outsider on the board making decisions. Unless the WMF representatives are going to run for election in the normal fashion, or unless they're going to be mute observers with no effective powers whatsoever, I don't think this idea is practical at all. Cheers, Craig ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: Draft version of WMAU's strategic plan
For the interest of you fine men and women on foundation-l :-) Cheers, Craig -- Forwarded message -- From: Craig Franklin cfrank...@wikimedia.org.au Date: 7 August 2011 20:48 Subject: Draft version of WMAU's strategic plan To: Local Chapters, board and officers coordination (closed subscription) interna...@lists.wikimedia.org, foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Chapters general discussions chapt...@wikimedia.ch Hi All, As the chair of Wikimedia Australia's strategic planning subcommittee, it gives me great pleasure to announce that we have released the draft version of our strategic plan for the next three years for comment and feedback. You can see the plan in full here: http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Draft_Strategic_Plan If you are interested in the processes behind the drafting of this plan, or you're a chapter thinking of starting this process (and if you are thinking of starting, I'd encourage you to actually start!), I have posted a blog entry here that goes over everything at a high level, and where I will be happy to answer any technical questions: http://lankiveil.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/strategic-planning-the-wikimedia-way/ Obviously, given the events of recent days, some aspects of this plan may need to be revisited, but it's my hope that the funding issue will get sorted out and we can get back to the ambitious but in my mind achievable programme work we have outlined here. Warmest Regards, Craig Franklin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board letter about fundraising and chapters
Just to follow on from what John Vandenberg said, WMAU's fundraising report, including all the facts and figures, was posted way way back at the beginning of February. While there were some minor differences of opinion between WMF and WMAU about some of the recommendations made, there was no concerns raised on the WMF side about the actual numbers, which were the important part. You can read the report here: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/w/images/6/66/Fundraising_Report.pdf I'll also echo what's been said earlier that Wikimedia Australia is extremely dismayed and disappointed by this latest development. While we agree that transparency and accountability are very important, so is providing a stable financial and regulatory environment for chapters and other groups to operate in, so that time and effort can go into programme work rather than arguing about issues such as this. Cheers, Craig Franklin Treasurer - Wikimedia Australia ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 88, Issue 62
God forbid that someone should have an opinion contrary to the fashion of the day (in this case, oral citations)! Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:21:18 -0700 From: M. Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: canyvhossvju6n30zmpxis3ktqousuibynovznag9hnu6a2f...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 What is your intention here, Elizabeth, besides trolling? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Corporate Social Responsibility
I don't know any of these people personally, but $128k a year for a legal expert of Mike Godwin's stature and experience sounds like a bargain, not an unreasonable expense. Given that WMF needs competent legal representation, and given that the WMF is not exactly flush with cash, we should be thanking Mike for essentially taking a pay cut compared to what he could probably have made in the for-profit sector. Also, at page 7, three major compensations are described: Sue Gardner was compensated 175050$ (equivalent to a monthly 14587$ income) Veronique Kessler was compensated 121859$ (equivalent to a monthly 10155$ income) Mike Godwin was compensated 128139$ (equivalent to a monthly 10678$ income). Regards, Craig ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
