Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

On 9/29/2010 7:00 PM, Risker wrote: > On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales wrote: >> On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote: >>> Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been >>> working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had >>> widely agreed that

[Foundation-l] Differences between projects with common versus highly diverse cultural backgrounds (was Re: Pending Changes)

On 29 September 2010 23:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > Andreas Kolbe > > wrote: > > > German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented > > *globally*, in all articles, for several years now. Unlike > > en:WP, where numbers of active editors have dropped > > significantly since 2007, numbers of

Re: [Foundation-l] Agenda set by Sue? (was Re: Pending Changes development update: September 27)

On 9/29/2010 8:47 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: >> the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue >> together with the chair of the Board and other Board members. > It is? Isn't that really really odd? Maybe it's not the most artful way of characterizing

[Foundation-l] Agenda set by Sue? (was Re: Pending Changes development update: September 27)

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue > together with the chair of the Board and other Board members. It is? Isn't that really really odd? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wi

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes

> Andreas Kolbe > wrote: > > German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented > *globally*, in all articles, for several years now. Unlike > en:WP, where numbers of active editors have dropped > significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in de:WP > have remained stable: > > > > http:/

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Risker wrote: > On 29 September 2010 22:37, Aude wrote: > >> >> >> Regret I was really not involved much in the trial or polls (mostly >> been on wiki break for the past ~9 months) but quite concerned now >> given Risker's concerns about the software being buggy an

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

On 29 September 2010 22:37, Aude wrote: > > > Regret I was really not involved much in the trial or polls (mostly > been on wiki break for the past ~9 months) but quite concerned now > given Risker's concerns about the software being buggy and other issues. > > And seeing people that I have lots

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:00 PM, Risker wrote: > On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales wrote: > >> On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote: >>> Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already >>> been >>> working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing >>> had >>>

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 16:38, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > well I think that the kosovars should just co submit the application for > albania and leave out the kosovo issue for now. > would that work? There are no obstacles for Wikimedia Albania. It will become a chapter after the reg

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote: > > Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been > > working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had > > widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be succes

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

On 9/29/10 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2010/9/28 John Vandenberg: >> This doesn't answer my question, which was: >> >> _When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]? > I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm > neither on the Board, nor am I part of Board m

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

On 9/29/10 12:51 AM, John Vandenberg wrote: > IMO the English Wikipedia community should be allowed to continue to > review the results of their trial, and/or discuss how the next trial > will occur. I agree with you completely, but also want to point out that this is exactly where we are right

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote: > Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been > working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had > widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more of > the recommendations on improving the s

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

Amazingly convoluted reply, good sir. And amazingly contradictory in tone. > Keegan Peterzell (also) wrote: > > > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Rec > > ommendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft > > > > < > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_for

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

I'm going to reply to a few different replies all at once, to make this a bit easier to ignore. Risker wrote: > Nobody was asking Erik or Danese to determine consensus. They were asked to > give their word that our consensus would be respected after the polling of > the community following a secon

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:23, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented *globally*, in all > articles, for several years now. Unlike en:WP, where numbers of active > editors have dropped significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in > de:WP have remai

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes

German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented *globally*, in all articles, for several years now. Unlike en:WP, where numbers of active editors have dropped significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in de:WP have remained stable: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

Hi, slightly off-topic, but for those who wonder what is "Kansai group", I'd love to give some clues as its members, as follows: meta page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WiKansai (mostly written in Japanese but some English description) own wiki: http://kansai.wikimedia.jp For information of [[K

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 16:37, James Heilman wrote: > I support PC for a number of reasons including. > > 1) Concerns are voiced both by academia and our readership regarding > Wikipedia's reliability. Pending changes addresses some of these > concerns. James, we don't want to cater to the academ

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

Oh yeah, also http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Recommendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft Point 4. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikip

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

First off, this is getting a little hot under the collar. Cucumbers, people. Cucumbers. On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2010/9/28 John Vandenberg : > > IMO, the foundation could look to strengthen its global policies > > regarding content where living people are a subje

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by > assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work > out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website > appearing to take sides in a m

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

On 29 September 2010 13:09, Lodewijk wrote: > That would only be the case if we would have sufficient information to > actually make a decision and this would be the actual body making such > decision in the first place. Some very important indicators are still > missing. We dont know who the grou

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

On 29 September 2010 12:24, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > You love theory, I love to be more realistic. Given that chapters are about > providing support in one area with one legal and financial system to the > WMF, it is clear and obvious that Kosovo is not part of greater Serbia. Actually, I'

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

Erik Moeller wrote: > 2010/9/28 John Vandenberg : > >> This doesn't answer my question, which was: >> >> _When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]? >> > I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm > neither on the Board, nor am I part of Board meetings,

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Mariano Cecowski < marianocecow...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote: > Gerard; if New York got to be a Chapter (or a SubChapter for what it > matters) then Kosovo can definitely be one as well. > > The question of whether it would end up being an independent chapter, or a > Sub

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

Gerard; if New York got to be a Chapter (or a SubChapter for what it matters) then Kosovo can definitely be one as well. The question of whether it would end up being an independent chapter, or a SubChapter of Serbia, or potentially Albania if it ever exists, is secondary to the WMF approval fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

Hoi, Lodewijk you are missing the point. The question is, should they bother, do they have a chance. When they provide all this information and then are denied for political reasons, it is best to say so up front. The notion that there is only success as an outcome is not relevant. The question ra

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

That would only be the case if we would have sufficient information to actually make a decision and this would be the actual body making such decision in the first place. Some very important indicators are still missing. We dont know who the group is, what they want to do, what they need, how many

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes

On 28 September 2010 23:37, James Heilman wrote: > Decisions at Wikipedia are not based a vote.  The majority support > Pending Changes and insufficient reasons have been put forwards by > those who wish to see it quashed. I would like to thank Erik Moeller > for the difficult discussion he has ma

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

Hoi, You love theory, I love to be more realistic. Given that chapters are about providing support in one area with one legal and financial system to the WMF, it is clear and obvious that Kosovo is not part of greater Serbia. When you assume that the contract with chapters can be interpreted in a

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

On 28 September 2010 23:55, Lodewijk wrote: > guys, please! Lets not try to solve hypothetical problems here until we know > what the problem will be! Let the folks see if they can get people together > in the first place, what they want to do, and what in their opinion would be > the best way to

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

On 28 September 2010 18:51, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Neither New York nor Hong Kong are independent. So this is not an argument. > It is completely beside the point what is the point is that Kosovo is > administratively a separate area. it has its own issues.. The Serbian chapter agreement

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2010/9/28 John Vandenberg : >> This doesn't answer my question, which was: >> >> _When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]? > > I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm > neither on the Board, ... I di

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

- Original Message - From: "David Gerard" To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? > You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in > whatever topic you're editing

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

2010/9/28 John Vandenberg : > This doesn't answer my question, which was: > > _When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]? I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm neither on the Board, nor am I part of Board meetings, nor do I serve as a conduit for them; th

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

- Original Message - From: "David Gerard" To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? > On 27 September 2010 15:17, Nathan wrote: > >> A few posts back Peter linked to several philoso