Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote: I admit I haven't been following the fundraiser process very carefully, but is there any place where people can see and comment on fundraising banners before they go live? I've only been able to find such a page for user-submitted banners. No one replied to this. Is that a no? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
Delphine Ménard, 10/12/2010 08:51: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote: OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it. They say you are not really part of the tech team until you have broken the site. I guess you are not really part of the Wikimedia community until you've got a whole thread on some Wikimedia mailing list criticizing your actions... ;) So...welcome to the Wikimedia community Zack! ;-) +1 :-) Just two small points. Zack Exley, 09/12/2010 18:24: [...] Jimmy and the editor banners all said pedia. [...] This is because the campaign is centred on Wikipedia only and specifically on Jimbo (who is famous thanks to Wikipedia). Hopefully the contributors appeals will also say something about Wikimedia and other Wikimedia projects and provide some banners which won't look out of place on sister projects. Andrew Garrett, 10/12/2010 00:32: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:19 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: This is an important point to raise regarding cultural and legal differences in regards to advertising, however the banner in question is not appearing in Australia. The Australian chapter is managing the banners and appeal text that appear within Australia, and there is no way 'Wikipedia Executive Director' would have been approved by the WMAu committee. For the record, I don't think that this arrangement is working well. There are a lot of people working on the fundraiser, both Wikimedia staff and hundreds of volunteers from the community. The Foundation has allocated substantial staff and resources to running a campaign that is agile and data-driven. In the United States, this has had a strong result -- US editors stopped seeing the Jimmy banners (which people are getting tired of despite their effectiveness) a week ago. Elsewhere in the world, bringing in the new editor/Sue appeal banners has been held up by this sort of bureaucracy. If we believe (as I do) that the central fundraising team is the best team for the job, then we should give them the ability to roll out their best work quickly, without going through the bureaucratic quagmire of requiring chapter approval for each special region. The rest of the world is missing out on the best that they can do. Although some details may be improved, I think that this isn't true at all. A week is not much, and it's normal to test banners and appeals in English and on en.wiki/USA before translating and creating banners for every wiki in every language for every country. Chapters are putting a lot of people in the fundraising, as well (WM-DE, WM-FR, WM-NL, WM-SR and maybe WM-UK and more also some paid staff), and I don't see why you should put this in terms of conflicts between better and worse teams instead of productive collaboration (as I see it). By the way, although there isn't any 2009 fundraising report, when the fundraising is closed we'll hopefully be able to compare results in various countries, and also 2010 vs. 2009 results for each country where we have 2009 data. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
This is because the campaign is centred on Wikipedia only and specifically on Jimbo (who is famous thanks to Wikipedia). Hopefully the contributors appeals will also say something about Wikimedia and other Wikimedia projects and provide some banners which won't look out of place on sister projects. Lilaroja work well ;) http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics more faces, bigger dynamic przykuta ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it.
I was looking at it from the perspective of the reader who has never heard
the word Wikimedia. There are millions and millions of them. Luckily they
simply think we are misspelling Wikipedia, and are donating anyways. We will
continue to answer their emails alerting us to our error with patient
explanations.
Let us add another line to the end of the appeal explaining that the Wikimedia
Foundation is a non-profit organization that hosts {{{SITENAME}}} and
other sister-projects.
___
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] Wikipedia Executive Director?
Calling Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director is simply wrong (factually and morally) and doing so is entirely unacceptable. Wikimedia ought to hold itself above lying to readers in order to solicit donations. These banners and landing pages are a violation of what Wikimedians strive to spread and strive to be and they should be changed immediately. MZMcBride On this site: http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?oldid=53090 and on this: http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=WMFLA002/en/PLutm_source=20101208_EA002A_ENutm_medium=sitenoticeutm_campaign=20101208EA15referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikisource.org%2Fwiki%2FSpecial%3ARecentChanges we see logo of Wikimedia Foundation It's not a problem to write From Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director (and Wikipedia editor[1]) with photo of Sue: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sue_Gardner_Headshot_A_%28medium%29_FULL.jpg in the text + Wikipedia Logo on the right or with this image http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Thumbnail20082010WMFAR.jpg (without report text of course) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10yrs_carry-our-message.png base image correspond to a gift and piggy bank ;) IMO it will be work przykuta [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sue_Gardner ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On 10 December 2010 11:20, Anirudh Bhati anirudh...@gmail.com wrote:
Let us add another line to the end of the appeal explaining that the
Wikimedia
Foundation is a non-profit organization that hosts {{{SITENAME}}} and
other sister-projects.
We had something like this in the 2008 and 2009 appeals - 2007 was
very Wikimedia-heavy, but these ones had a single section in each.
We currently have the odd situation where a local chapter form:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMFJA1/GB
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMFJA1/AU
is actually slightly clearer on who WM are than the main one:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/WMFJA1/en/US
Putting a comment under the donation box in the sidebar might work
better than adding it to the end, I think - it means we don't have to
change it each time we change the appeal. We can also adapt it to
mention the local chapter, where relevant, without changing the text -
like WMAU have, here.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the sort. That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content. I don't think it should be used anywhere. But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects. -- John Vandenberg we must raise $14 million 14, not 16? przykuta ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
ouch, this is painful. Like many chapters probably I have been trying to explain to people the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia has no such thing as a board of editors or even a board of directors, but that the Wikimedia Foundation has, etc - and now we are running a page ourselves that says we /do/ have an executive director? (giving the impression that there is actually personnel to write the encyclopedia) I know that KISS is a good thing, but we have always tried to make clear that wiki/p/edia is a volunteer project, why are we loosing that now? I hope that it will be possible to make this small change from a p into an m. Lodewijk 2010/12/9 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: FWIW The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to acknowledge that... Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the sort. That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content. I don't think it should be used anywhere. But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On 9 December 2010 10:00, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: ouch, this is painful. Like many chapters probably I have been trying to explain to people the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia has no such thing as a board of editors or even a board of directors, but that the Wikimedia Foundation has, etc - and now we are running a page ourselves that says we /do/ have an executive director? (giving the impression that there is actually personnel to write the encyclopedia) I know that KISS is a good thing, but we have always tried to make clear that wiki/p/edia is a volunteer project, why are we loosing that now? I hope that it will be possible to make this small change from a p into an m. I agree. It is very unfortunate that we are now stuck with such similar names for such different things, but we do need to get it right. Sue is *not* the ED of Wikipedia. She's not even the ED of Wikimedia. She is the ED of the Wikimedia Foundation. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
I hope that it will be possible to make this small change from a p into an m. Yeah, it's not like it's even in a graphic, it's a text page -- easy fix. But I'd suggest adding Foundation in there too. As it stands presently it looks like the site was hacked. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
All - We're going to test Wikimedia against Wikipedia in the banner right now. Sorry for not starting with Wikimedia and testing pedia after, but we're trying to iterate as close to one variable at a time. Jimmy and the editor banners all said pedia. The fact is that most of our donors -- and more of our potential donors -- don't know what Wikimedia Foundation is, or only have a dim notion of it. If they're on Wikipedia and the banner is talking about something else, they think it's an ad for a third party. That's bad! We need to connect with millions and millions of readers. Only 1% click the banners when we're doing well. Less than 1% of those clickers donate. So we can't afford to write banners that don't make sense to people. Let just hope that Media does as well as Pedia! Zack On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 9 December 2010 10:00, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: ouch, this is painful. Like many chapters probably I have been trying to explain to people the difference between Wikimedia and Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia has no such thing as a board of editors or even a board of directors, but that the Wikimedia Foundation has, etc - and now we are running a page ourselves that says we /do/ have an executive director? (giving the impression that there is actually personnel to write the encyclopedia) I know that KISS is a good thing, but we have always tried to make clear that wiki/p/edia is a volunteer project, why are we loosing that now? I hope that it will be possible to make this small change from a p into an m. I agree. It is very unfortunate that we are now stuck with such similar names for such different things, but we do need to get it right. Sue is *not* the ED of Wikipedia. She's not even the ED of Wikimedia. She is the ED of the Wikimedia Foundation. ___ 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] Wikipedia Executive Director?
The fact is that most of our donors -- and more of our potential donors -- don't know what Wikimedia Foundation is Use it on banners and they will be know, but not by Wikipedia directors przykuta ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
I don't support this word choice: on twitter.com Japanese speaking reader mistook it as one of English Wikipedia admins someone who writes articles etc. Not only smaller projects but also on the Wikipedia, this factual error is better to correct I think. I heard it placed only on enwiki (in a downtime I haven't confirmed yet), but English is no mother tongue of every reader of the English Wikipedia. Factual error and language barriers may spread false information. Cheers, On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: FWIW The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to acknowledge that... Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the sort. That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content. I don't think it should be used anywhere. But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: While I understand the challenges in communicating effectively with a variety of audiences, I think the point that's been raised is that for a project that is all about trying to describe things as accurately as possible, much of the community feels that in order to maintain a basic level of accuracy, it's worth it to forgo whatever additional money we might raise by giving it up. To phrase it differently, this is not a messaging decision that should be left to the outcome of AB testing. That's an argument to which I'm sympathetic. That certainly describes my position very well. Thank you. And mine. My thanks too. To even imply that Wikipedia has an executive director is not only a falsehood, but also somehow undermines all the efforts the Wikimedia community has put in over the years to differentiate Wikimedia from Wikipedia, and more importantly, to make sure that it was clear that Wikimedia organisations (chapters and Foundation alike) have no power over editorial content. Delphine -- @notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
2010/12/9 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: While I understand the challenges in communicating effectively with a variety of audiences, I think the point that's been raised is that for a project that is all about trying to describe things as accurately as possible, much of the community feels that in order to maintain a basic level of accuracy, it's worth it to forgo whatever additional money we might raise by giving it up. To phrase it differently, this is not a messaging decision that should be left to the outcome of AB testing. That's an argument to which I'm sympathetic. That certainly describes my position very well. Thank you. And mine. My thanks too. To even imply that Wikipedia has an executive director is not only a falsehood, but also somehow undermines all the efforts the Wikimedia community has put in over the years to differentiate Wikimedia from Wikipedia, and more importantly, to make sure that it was clear that Wikimedia organisations (chapters and Foundation alike) have no power over editorial content. Delphine I agree completely with Michael Snow and Delphine. The impulse is understandable, but it's a mistake to encourage a misunderstanding that can undermine the confidence of the public in Wikipedia's independence and create confusion about the structure of the WMF and its projects. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
2010/12/9 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com: I don't support this word choice: on twitter.com Japanese speaking reader mistook it as one of English Wikipedia admins someone who writes articles etc. Not only smaller projects but also on the Wikipedia, this factual error is better to correct I think. I heard it placed only on enwiki (in a downtime I haven't confirmed yet), but English is no mother tongue of every reader of the English Wikipedia. Factual error and language barriers may spread false information. Not to mention cultural barriers. In Wikipedia communities with (to me, uncomfortably) structured hierarchies—Senior Editor, Editor Second Class, Senior Chief Petty Editor—this is bound to confuse the heck out of people. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we have enough problems trying to differentiate between Wikileaks and Wikimedia; having to revisit Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia is understandably frustrating to those of us who've spent years explaining the difference. It's easy to point fingers at an almost exclusively North American staff and cry cultural ignorance, but I'm not—I know that plenty of people on staff have years of experience working across cultures, even if it's talking to foreigners on IRC. I wonder, though, who on staff can name the editor ranks on zhwiki? Austin On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: FWIW The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to acknowledge that... Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the sort. That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content. I don't think it should be used anywhere. But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ 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] Wikipedia Executive Director?
Am I placed on moderation? all my previous emails seem to fail? 2010/12/9 Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com 2010/12/9 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com: I don't support this word choice: on twitter.com Japanese speaking reader mistook it as one of English Wikipedia admins someone who writes articles etc. Not only smaller projects but also on the Wikipedia, this factual error is better to correct I think. I heard it placed only on enwiki (in a downtime I haven't confirmed yet), but English is no mother tongue of every reader of the English Wikipedia. Factual error and language barriers may spread false information. Not to mention cultural barriers. In Wikipedia communities with (to me, uncomfortably) structured hierarchies―Senior Editor, Editor Second Class, Senior Chief Petty Editor―this is bound to confuse the heck out of people. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we have enough problems trying to differentiate between Wikileaks and Wikimedia; having to revisit Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia is understandably frustrating to those of us who've spent years explaining the difference. It's easy to point fingers at an almost exclusively North American staff and cry cultural ignorance, but I'm not―I know that plenty of people on staff have years of experience working across cultures, even if it's talking to foreigners on IRC. I wonder, though, who on staff can name the editor ranks on zhwiki? Austin On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: FWIW The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to acknowledge that... Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the sort. That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content. I don't think it should be used anywhere. But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ 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 -- Regards, Huib Abigor Laurens Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
2010/12/9 Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com: Am I placed on moderation? all my previous emails seem to fail? I've received this email... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
You don't receive your own mails. We got two copies of your previous mail. You can check on the pipermail. [1] [1]: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/ On 09/12/2010 19:39, Huib Laurens wrote: Am I placed on moderation? all my previous emails seem to fail? 2010/12/9 Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com 2010/12/9 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com: I don't support this word choice: on twitter.com Japanese speaking reader mistook it as one of English Wikipedia admins someone who writes articles etc. Not only smaller projects but also on the Wikipedia, this factual error is better to correct I think. I heard it placed only on enwiki (in a downtime I haven't confirmed yet), but English is no mother tongue of every reader of the English Wikipedia. Factual error and language barriers may spread false information. Not to mention cultural barriers. In Wikipedia communities with (to me, uncomfortably) structured hierarchies―Senior Editor, Editor Second Class, Senior Chief Petty Editor―this is bound to confuse the heck out of people. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we have enough problems trying to differentiate between Wikileaks and Wikimedia; having to revisit Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia is understandably frustrating to those of us who've spent years explaining the difference. It's easy to point fingers at an almost exclusively North American staff and cry cultural ignorance, but I'm not―I know that plenty of people on staff have years of experience working across cultures, even if it's talking to foreigners on IRC. I wonder, though, who on staff can name the editor ranks on zhwiki? Austin On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: FWIW The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to acknowledge that... Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the sort. That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content. I don't think it should be used anywhere. But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ 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] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: it into the story for fundraising and other communications. We need to both make sense and be accurate. If it's accurate and doesn't make sense, it probably won't be effective, but also just because something makes sense to people doesn't make it accurate, and that's equally a problem. It may be a bad move in this case, but I don't think we should *always* avoid this sort of glossing. We ran banners on the English projects, for example, describing people as Wikipedia authors; this is a term not generally used there, preferring editor instead. But to an outsider, author is a much more descriptive term than editor; it doesn't imply seniority or control, and so while it's technically inaccurate it actually gets the idea of a normal user across much better than having the right terminology would. (Many of us have seen seen cases where someone's heard editor of Wikipedia and got drastically the wrong impression...) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
2010/12/9 Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com: Am I placed on moderation? all my previous emails seem to fail? You are definitely not on moderation, and I don't see any record of you ever being on moderation. If you have any doubts about whether a message of yours has gone through, you can contact me or any other administrator to check. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
I switched the option on to get notification when my emails get to the list... But that seems to stopped working today? 2010/12/9 Noein prono...@gmail.com You don't receive your own mails. We got two copies of your previous mail. You can check on the pipermail. [1] [1]: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/ On 09/12/2010 19:39, Huib Laurens wrote: Am I placed on moderation? all my previous emails seem to fail? 2010/12/9 Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com 2010/12/9 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com: I don't support this word choice: on twitter.com Japanese speaking reader mistook it as one of English Wikipedia admins someone who writes articles etc. Not only smaller projects but also on the Wikipedia, this factual error is better to correct I think. I heard it placed only on enwiki (in a downtime I haven't confirmed yet), but English is no mother tongue of every reader of the English Wikipedia. Factual error and language barriers may spread false information. Not to mention cultural barriers. In Wikipedia communities with (to me, uncomfortably) structured hierarchies―Senior Editor, Editor Second Class, Senior Chief Petty Editor―this is bound to confuse the heck out of people. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we have enough problems trying to differentiate between Wikileaks and Wikimedia; having to revisit Wikimedia vs. Wikipedia is understandably frustrating to those of us who've spent years explaining the difference. It's easy to point fingers at an almost exclusively North American staff and cry cultural ignorance, but I'm not―I know that plenty of people on staff have years of experience working across cultures, even if it's talking to foreigners on IRC. I wonder, though, who on staff can name the editor ranks on zhwiki? Austin On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:55 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: FWIW The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to acknowledge that... Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the sort. That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content. I don't think it should be used anywhere. But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ 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 -- Regards, Huib Abigor Laurens Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
I'm not going to debate the whole wording thing, but I will point out, It is a crime to receive property/goods under false pretenses in Australia which is what advertising a person with the incorrect job title would be. Don't forget it isn't only the foundation handling the donations this year, the local chapters are as well. -Peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On 9 December 2010 23:03, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: I'm not going to debate the whole wording thing, but I will point out, It is a crime to receive property/goods under false pretenses in Australia which is what advertising a person with the incorrect job title would be. Don't forget it isn't only the foundation handling the donations this year, the local chapters are as well. Gaining money through deception is a crime pretty much everywhere. I doubt this would actually count as gaining money through deception, though. The fact being misrepresented would probably be considered immaterial. You would also struggle to prove that the donor wouldn't have donated if they had realised what Sue's actual job title was. I don't know the details of Australian laws on fraud, but I expect at least one of those points would be enough to avoid any criminal convictions. Let's not get sensational. The error is bad, but it isn't criminal. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On 12/9/2010 3:03 PM, K. Peachey wrote: I'm not going to debate the whole wording thing, but I will point out, It is a crime to receive property/goods under false pretenses in Australia which is what advertising a person with the incorrect job title would be. Don't forget it isn't only the foundation handling the donations this year, the local chapters are as well. -Peachey You're not going to express an opinion on the merits of the question, but you're going to insinuate criminality is involved anyway? Come on, you're better than that. I've already indicated where I stand on this, but I find it embarrassing to have that position associated with debating tactics like this. It's a perfect example of why it's often so easy to dismiss our critics, when their approach involves such sleazy argumentation. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:03 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: I'm not going to debate the whole wording thing, but I will point out, It is a crime to receive property/goods under false pretenses in Australia which is what advertising a person with the incorrect job title would be. Don't forget it isn't only the foundation handling the donations this year, the local chapters are as well. This is an important point to raise regarding cultural and legal differences in regards to advertising, however the banner in question is not appearing in Australia. The Australian chapter is managing the banners and appeal text that appear within Australia, and there is no way 'Wikipedia Executive Director' would have been approved by the WMAu committee. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
Michael Snow wrote: On 12/9/2010 3:03 PM, K. Peachey wrote: I'm not going to debate the whole wording thing, but I will point out, It is a crime to receive property/goods under false pretenses in Australia which is what advertising a person with the incorrect job title would be. Don't forget it isn't only the foundation handling the donations this year, the local chapters are as well. -Peachey You're not going to express an opinion on the merits of the question, but you're going to insinuate criminality is involved anyway? Come on, you're better than that. I've already indicated where I stand on this, but I find it embarrassing to have that position associated with debating tactics like this. It's a perfect example of why it's often so easy to dismiss our critics, when their approach involves such sleazy argumentation. 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. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:19 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: This is an important point to raise regarding cultural and legal differences in regards to advertising, however the banner in question is not appearing in Australia. The Australian chapter is managing the banners and appeal text that appear within Australia, and there is no way 'Wikipedia Executive Director' would have been approved by the WMAu committee. For the record, I don't think that this arrangement is working well. There are a lot of people working on the fundraiser, both Wikimedia staff and hundreds of volunteers from the community. The Foundation has allocated substantial staff and resources to running a campaign that is agile and data-driven. In the United States, this has had a strong result -- US editors stopped seeing the Jimmy banners (which people are getting tired of despite their effectiveness) a week ago. Elsewhere in the world, bringing in the new editor/Sue appeal banners has been held up by this sort of bureaucracy. If we believe (as I do) that the central fundraising team is the best team for the job, then we should give them the ability to roll out their best work quickly, without going through the bureaucratic quagmire of requiring chapter approval for each special region. The rest of the world is missing out on the best that they can do. -- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
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? The line between what is and is not acceptable or defensible. Crediting Jimmy Wales as a founder of Wikipedia is indisputable. Check Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales We should not rehash the co-founder vs. founder debate again, but I think it's safe to say that there have been reasonable people who have objected to the past Jimmy banners using the word founder. Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line as far as accuracy goes, but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it sleazy. Assuming good faith is what Newyorkbrad did when he suggested that it was simply a typo. There is no reason to assume good faith when you know that people are intentionally creating banners and landing pages that are wrong. This is a fairly well established principle on Wikimedia wikis. 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. K. Peachey did cite both the law and the actions by Wikimedia that he or she believed to be in violation of it. I'm not sure why you seem to be suggesting that there is ambiguity here. In any case, I'm told that the banners are being changed right now, so this particular issue is likely going to be moot in very short order. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it. I was looking at it from the perspective of the reader who has never heard the word Wikimedia. There are millions and millions of them. Luckily they simply think we are misspelling Wikipedia, and are donating anyways. We will continue to answer their emails alerting us to our error with patient explanations. -- Zack Exley Chief Community Officer Wikimedia Foundation On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/12/9 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: While I understand the challenges in communicating effectively with a variety of audiences, I think the point that's been raised is that for a project that is all about trying to describe things as accurately as possible, much of the community feels that in order to maintain a basic level of accuracy, it's worth it to forgo whatever additional money we might raise by giving it up. To phrase it differently, this is not a messaging decision that should be left to the outcome of AB testing. That's an argument to which I'm sympathetic. That certainly describes my position very well. Thank you. And mine. My thanks too. To even imply that Wikipedia has an executive director is not only a falsehood, but also somehow undermines all the efforts the Wikimedia community has put in over the years to differentiate Wikimedia from Wikipedia, and more importantly, to make sure that it was clear that Wikimedia organisations (chapters and Foundation alike) have no power over editorial content. Delphine I agree completely with Michael Snow and Delphine. The impulse is understandable, but it's a mistake to encourage a misunderstanding that can undermine the confidence of the public in Wikipedia's independence and create confusion about the structure of the WMF and its projects. Nathan ___ 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] Wikipedia Executive Director?
2010/12/9 Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com: I switched the option on to get notification when my emails get to the list... But that seems to stopped working today? Gmail is helpful and won't show you a copy of any email you sent. And there's no way to get it to. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On 12/9/2010 4:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote: Michael Snow wrote: Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line as far as accuracy goes, but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it sleazy. Assuming good faith is what Newyorkbrad did when he suggested that it was simply a typo. There is no reason to assume good faith when you know that people are intentionally creating banners and landing pages that are wrong. They don't intend them to be wrong. They may actually be wrong, as I've said, but they are not intended to be wrong. That is why we assume good faith. 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. K. Peachey did cite both the law and the actions by Wikimedia that he or she believed to be in violation of it. I'm not sure why you seem to be suggesting that there is ambiguity here. No, K. Peachey avoided citing actions by not debating the whole wording thing that would establish what the action entailed, offering instead a generic description of criminal law that would encourage people, in passive-aggressive style, to draw their own conclusions about the supposed criminality involved. I can't tell whether K. Peachey believed the actions in question would be in violation of the law or not. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: No, K. Peachey avoided citing actions by not debating the whole wording thing that would establish what the action entailed, offering instead a generic description of criminal law that would encourage people, in passive-aggressive style, to draw their own conclusions about the supposed criminality involved. I can't tell whether K. Peachey believed the actions in question would be in violation of the law or not. --Michael Snow No, I decided not to start debating yet again in this thread since it's already been discussed weather or not we should have falsely worded banners, and I'm sure there are other people than my self that are more than happy to have such a discussion where I would prefer not to. What I did do was point out possible side effects for chapters should these banners be ran in their areas using Australia as a example since being a resident here, I have a some what limited knowledge on our laws, Which from previous discussions on WMF mailing lists previously and elsewhere, I have a understanding most places have similar ones in place. And as such believed that was very relevant to the subject being discussed at hand. -p858snake/peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote: OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it. I was looking at it from the perspective of the reader who has never heard the word Wikimedia. There are millions and millions of them. Luckily they simply think we are misspelling Wikipedia, and are donating anyways. We will continue to answer their emails alerting us to our error with patient explanations. I'm pretty sympathetic with you. I got same kind emails on OTRS queues I'm taking care of too. How about having Jimmy (in the next time? Or right now?) add one line to his personal message for donors something to try clarification on that, on Wikimedia Foundation is founded for fostering Wikipedia and other sister projects? Donors may notice - at least some of them hopefully. -- Zack Exley Chief Community Officer Wikimedia Foundation On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/12/9 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: While I understand the challenges in communicating effectively with a variety of audiences, I think the point that's been raised is that for a project that is all about trying to describe things as accurately as possible, much of the community feels that in order to maintain a basic level of accuracy, it's worth it to forgo whatever additional money we might raise by giving it up. To phrase it differently, this is not a messaging decision that should be left to the outcome of AB testing. That's an argument to which I'm sympathetic. That certainly describes my position very well. Thank you. And mine. My thanks too. To even imply that Wikipedia has an executive director is not only a falsehood, but also somehow undermines all the efforts the Wikimedia community has put in over the years to differentiate Wikimedia from Wikipedia, and more importantly, to make sure that it was clear that Wikimedia organisations (chapters and Foundation alike) have no power over editorial content. Delphine I agree completely with Michael Snow and Delphine. The impulse is understandable, but it's a mistake to encourage a misunderstanding that can undermine the confidence of the public in Wikipedia's independence and create confusion about the structure of the WMF and its projects. Nathan ___ 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 -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
I didn't like the assumption of bad faith earlier on part of the team, the fundraising team [1] as you would note, consists of Community members from different locations and backgrounds. I am from India, Moushirah is from Egypt, Dan and James are community members who also work remotely, all of us are community members working on the fundraiser together. Philippe himself has been a long-standing community member for the past few years before joining the foundation. The implication of an Us Vs. them mentality here, is counter-productive to our common goal. The banner in question was created yesterday and barely went live for a very short time before MZ mentioned it on the list. It was rectified within hours once there was an objection raised, this I thought, was an example of the community working together. Also, as someone who has a different background than the majority of people on the list, I can speak to the recognizability factor of Wikipedia Vs. Wikimedia. I can personally attest to uncertainty between the association of Wikimedia with Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, I agree that the we should inform the readers about the difference and the relation between the two, but you also must understand that there are constraints to what we can do with a banner. We have a limited amount of space on each banner to connect with our readers, Jimmy's appeal as the Wikipedia Founder has worked incredibly well so far, so have the editor appeals, we took some liberty with the intoduction and took the shorter approach in light of direct statistical evidence between our options. It was never our intention to deceive or imply anything beyond the facts. My only issue is with the assumption of Bad faith on our part, we did the best considering the data that was available. In light of the reaction, changes were made as quickly as possible and the differences clarified. Regards Salmaan Haroon User:Theo10011 Community Associate [1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Staff http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Staff On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:30 AM, KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote: OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it. I was looking at it from the perspective of the reader who has never heard the word Wikimedia. There are millions and millions of them. Luckily they simply think we are misspelling Wikipedia, and are donating anyways. We will continue to answer their emails alerting us to our error with patient explanations. I'm pretty sympathetic with you. I got same kind emails on OTRS queues I'm taking care of too. How about having Jimmy (in the next time? Or right now?) add one line to his personal message for donors something to try clarification on that, on Wikimedia Foundation is founded for fostering Wikipedia and other sister projects? Donors may notice - at least some of them hopefully. -- Zack Exley Chief Community Officer Wikimedia Foundation On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/12/9 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 9 December 2010 18:54, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: While I understand the challenges in communicating effectively with a variety of audiences, I think the point that's been raised is that for a project that is all about trying to describe things as accurately as possible, much of the community feels that in order to maintain a basic level of accuracy, it's worth it to forgo whatever additional money we might raise by giving it up. To phrase it differently, this is not a messaging decision that should be left to the outcome of AB testing. That's an argument to which I'm sympathetic. That certainly describes my position very well. Thank you. And mine. My thanks too. To even imply that Wikipedia has an executive director is not only a falsehood, but also somehow undermines all the efforts the Wikimedia community has put in over the years to differentiate Wikimedia from Wikipedia, and more importantly, to make sure that it was clear that Wikimedia organisations (chapters and Foundation alike) have no power over editorial content. Delphine I agree completely with Michael Snow and Delphine. The impulse is understandable, but it's a mistake to encourage a misunderstanding that can undermine the confidence of the public in Wikipedia's independence and create confusion about the structure of the WMF and its projects. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:35 AM, theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't like the assumption of bad faith earlier on part of the team, the fundraising team [1] as you would note, consists of Community members from different locations and backgrounds. I am from India, Moushirah is from Egypt, Dan and James are community members who also work remotely, all of us are community members working on the fundraiser together. Philippe himself has been a long-standing community member for the past few years before joining the foundation. The implication of an Us Vs. them mentality here, is counter-productive to our common goal. Being an en.wp admin, oversighter (on leave), and OTRS admin, I think it's fair to say I'm a community member working remotely as well :) Alex as a meta admin/crat, en.wp admin, and all around awesomeness on transcom. If the Community department has ever had a community running the show, this is it. I understand the point and the perceived assumption of bad faith, but perhaps we do need awareness that over half of the staff working on this campaign are plucked from the community and we've spent thousands of hours over years for Wikimedia. Things are fixed, we acted quickly (both community and staff, thank you MZ and the folks that fixed the banner), and we're all here for each other. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote: OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it. They say you are not really part of the tech team until you have broken the site. I guess you are not really part of the Wikimedia community until you've got a whole thread on some Wikimedia mailing list criticizing your actions... ;) So...welcome to the Wikimedia community Zack! ;-) I was looking at it from the perspective of the reader who has never heard the word Wikimedia. There are millions and millions of them. Luckily they simply think we are misspelling Wikipedia, and are donating anyways. We will continue to answer their emails alerting us to our error with patient explanations. Thank you and the fundraising team for a quick reaction and thorough explanations. Best, Delphine -- @notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?
FWIW The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to acknowledge that... pb ___ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. ofc: +1 415 839 6885 x6643 mobile: +1 918 200 WIKI (9454) pbeaude...@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://donate.wikimedia.org On Dec 8, 2010, at 5:42 PM, MZMcBride wrote: Hi. The new banners and landing pages with Sue Gardner are using the phrase Wikipedia Executive Director; for example: http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?oldid=53090 I'm not a big fan of the smaller projects. On more than one occasion I've called for disbanding some of them. However, Wikimedia is made up of more than just Wikipedia. It is a spit in the face to editors of non-Wikipedias to put these banners on the top of any Wikimedia project (I saw this banner on mediawiki.org). It is the Wikimedia Foundation, not the Wikipedia Foundation. Calling Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director is simply wrong (factually and morally) and doing so is entirely unacceptable. Wikimedia ought to hold itself above lying to readers in order to solicit donations. These banners and landing pages are a violation of what Wikimedians strive to spread and strive to be and they should be changed immediately. MZMcBride ___ 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] Wikipedia Executive Director?
I agree that this factual error should be corrected (as we have told it is being corrected), but raising what was perfectly likely to have been an innocent error to the level of being morally wrong, without having even asked first, seems rhetorically excessive. Newyorkbrad On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:42 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Hi. The new banners and landing pages with Sue Gardner are using the phrase Wikipedia Executive Director; for example: http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?oldid=53090 I'm not a big fan of the smaller projects. On more than one occasion I've called for disbanding some of them. However, Wikimedia is made up of more than just Wikipedia. It is a spit in the face to editors of non-Wikipedias to put these banners on the top of any Wikimedia project (I saw this banner on mediawiki.org). It is the Wikimedia Foundation, not the Wikipedia Foundation. Calling Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director is simply wrong (factually and morally) and doing so is entirely unacceptable. Wikimedia ought to hold itself above lying to readers in order to solicit donations. These banners and landing pages are a violation of what Wikimedians strive to spread and strive to be and they should be changed immediately. MZMcBride ___ 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] Wikipedia Executive Director?
For the record, MZMcBride did let me know that he was sending a nastygram. So while I disagree with his language choice, he checked first. \ pb On Dec 8, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote: I agree that this factual error should be corrected (as we have told it is being corrected), but raising what was perfectly likely to have been an innocent error to the level of being morally wrong, without having even asked first, seems rhetorically excessive. Newyorkbrad On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:42 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Hi. The new banners and landing pages with Sue Gardner are using the phrase Wikipedia Executive Director; for example: http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?oldid=53090 I'm not a big fan of the smaller projects. On more than one occasion I've called for disbanding some of them. However, Wikimedia is made up of more than just Wikipedia. It is a spit in the face to editors of non-Wikipedias to put these banners on the top of any Wikimedia project (I saw this banner on mediawiki.org). It is the Wikimedia Foundation, not the Wikipedia Foundation. Calling Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director is simply wrong (factually and morally) and doing so is entirely unacceptable. Wikimedia ought to hold itself above lying to readers in order to solicit donations. These banners and landing pages are a violation of what Wikimedians strive to spread and strive to be and they should be changed immediately. MZMcBride ___ 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] Wikipedia Executive Director?
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: FWIW The word Wikipedia wasn't supposed to make it to sister sites, and that's being fixed right now, so pardon my quick note... I'll write a bit more later about the term as being used on Wikipedia, but the error in pushing it out to sister sites is being corrected right now, so I wanted to acknowledge that... Wikipedia does not have an Executive Director, or anything of the sort. That title suggests that Sue has the final say over content. I don't think it should be used anywhere. But, thanks for at least removing it from the 'smaller' projects. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
