Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Mark Williamson wrote: > The last post in that thread wasn't blocked because of its content, it > was blocked because the thread itself was blocked. I could try to > reply to it now with a little paragraph about sunshine and rainbows > and it wouldn't go through.

Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo

The last post in that thread wasn't blocked because of its content, it was blocked because the thread itself was blocked. I could try to reply to it now with a little paragraph about sunshine and rainbows and it wouldn't go through. Nobody read that message and made the decision not to post it to t

Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mark Williamson wrote: > So you are saying that list administrators are technocrats only, that > they just carry out technical tasks and aren't asked to exercise their > own judgement and that you believe the order for your moderation was > handed down from someone

Re: [Foundation-l] What's up with IdeaTorrent

2009/7/31 Mohamed Magdy : > Hi W, > > What is going on with IdeaTorrent? are we going to have one or not? do we > need to have a Meta poll or something? I don't think there's any opposition to implementing one. I think for us to officially set it up we'd want to rig it up with CentralAuth to avoid

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

2009/7/31 geni : > 2009/8/1 Erik Moeller : >> * a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and >> prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is >> becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become >> commonplace; > > Commons could do this tomorrow if t

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

2009/8/1 Erik Moeller : > * a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and > prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is > becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become > commonplace; Commons could do this tomorrow if the blender file type was a

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

2009/7/31 Samuel Klein : > On critical complex topics, the Foundation could benefit from more > discussion and better planning.  Why have we made it so hard to start > new Projects? I would suggest that we use the strategy call for proposals to re-surface some of the most important project ideas t

Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo

So you are saying that list administrators are technocrats only, that they just carry out technical tasks and aren't asked to exercise their own judgement and that you believe the order for your moderation was handed down from someone else, someone who you would like to be exposed? Just checking.

Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote: > > Any emails to the mailing list with that subject line get auto deleted. And > you can see, no email with that subject line has appeared since. > 2. I would supect "we" are the moderators of the mai

Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Walter Vermeir wrote: > An other way would be that Wikimedia is funded by some international > body, like UNESCO. The WMF budget for 2009-2010 is 9,4 million US > dollar. That is not a lot on a global scale. > I find it very normal that institutions are government

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:45 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > Dear everyone, > As a reminder, we also discussed suffrage requirements on this list last year: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/042105.html > > As a response to concerns over the proposed requirement that there be

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > > On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote: > >> There >> is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any >> good >> ideas, and then ask the community what they think about the best of >> those >> ideas. That, in my vi

Re: [Foundation-l] Geonotice improvements that could make Wikinews great (among other benefits)

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Sage Ross wrote: > One of the great frustrations of Wikinews for me is that it doesn't > have a system for identifying and pointing users toward opportunities > to get out into the offline world and do original reporting.  A > fine-grained cross-project opt-in geono

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

Dear everyone, As a reminder, we also discussed suffrage requirements on this list last year: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/042105.html As a response to concerns over the proposed requirement that there be 50 edits between April and June before the election, this per

Re: [Foundation-l] Year: 2009 Week: 31 Number: 113

Addendum to Wikizine 113: Bigipedia episode 1 is not longer available on the BBC website. Episode 2 is available. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lszrc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigipedia -- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community

Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations

stevertigo schreef: > It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to > some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to > eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this > not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Philippe Beaudette < pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote: > > > There > > is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any > > good > > ideas, and then ask the community what they think about the best of

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote: > There > is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any > good > ideas, and then ask the community what they think about the best of > those > ideas. That, in my view, is a broken system. Really? Been to the strategic planning

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote: > Brian wrote: > > I'm going to take particular issue with the last point here. > > On 3 June *2008*, right after last year election, Jesse Plamondon-Willard > (Pathoschild), one of last year election committee member, posted on the > talk p

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

Brian wrote: The WMF is a far cry from the original vision of it as a membership organization. Also, the board propagates stale laws under the notion of status quo for which the original "consensus" is no longer remembered. There is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have an

[Foundation-l] Year: 2009 Week: 31 Number: 113

** ____ _ __ _ / / /\ \ (_) | _(_)___(_)_ __ ___ \ \/ \/ / | |/ / |_ / | '_ \ / _ \ \ /\ /| | <| |/ /| | | | | __/ \/ \/ |_|_|\_\_/___|_|_| |_|\___| .org Year: 2009 Week: 31 Number: 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo

stevertigo wrote: It's a little late for this. Besides you didn't "killfile" the thread (whatever that translates to in grown-up terms) - you moderated/blocked me, and did so without serious or even sufficient public notification. The seven-word private reply you gave me (quoted below somewhere)

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Philippe Beaudette < pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Allow me, please, to reinforce this, wearing my "election committee > member" hat. > > This years' rules were mostly carryovers from last years' rules. When > we started, we looked around, realized that no s

Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo

Can you guys air your dirty laundry in private? This is not really an appropriate topic to be sending to all the list subscribers, I'd think. --- Rjd0060 rjd0060.w...@gmail.com On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:07 PM, stevertigo wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Austin Hair wrote: > > > I kil

Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Austin Hair wrote: > I killfiled the thread, as I noted in two e-mails to the mailing list. >  The usual process for this involves flagging for moderation all > topics with that subject line, and additionally any members I think > likely to try to pursue the topic

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

Philippe Beaudette wrote: I'm sure that if there is significant response to the edit count requirement, next year's committee will happily (he said confidently, with no intent to volunteer for next year's committee) review it then. LOL, how many have you been on now? :P There's no (planned

[Foundation-l] What's up with IdeaTorrent

Hi W, What is going on with IdeaTorrent? are we going to have one or not? do we need to have a Meta poll or something? alnokta ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foun

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

Allow me, please, to reinforce this, wearing my "election committee member" hat. This years' rules were mostly carryovers from last years' rules. When we started, we looked around, realized that no significant opposition to last years' rules had been expressed, checked the talk pages to be

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

Brian wrote: Speaking of consensus, where can I find the consensus for severely restricting the number of people who can vote by an arbitrary rule, and where is the consensus for the particular rule? You make it clear that The Powers That Be sit around a coffee table and pick whatever they think

Re: [Foundation-l] Geonotice improvements that could make Wikinews great (among other benefits)

The Strategic Planning wiki is a good place to discuss this idea and how it changed and/or implemented: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals/Geonotice_improvements http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposals/Geonotice_improvements -Sage On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Sage Ross wr

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote: > You know, this comes up every year. And there's always good argument to > both sides but there's never consensus to actually change it. There has been > an election in one form or another since 2004, and except in 2004 where the > requirem

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

You know, this comes up every year. And there's always good argument to both sides but there's never consensus to actually change it. There has been an election in one form or another since 2004, and except in 2004 where the requirement was having an account that is at least 3 months old or be

Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM, stevertigo wrote: > Anyway, for the record, the last message I sent to that thread - > itself quite obviously (from its content) intended to be my last > message on that thread - was never posted. I killfiled the thread, as I noted in two e-mails to the mailing li

Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations

2009/7/31 stevertigo : > My impression is that Wikimedia currently lives year to year on > donations, and that reserves are sufficient to pay a skeleton crew of > fundraisers.  I'm sure its been discussed before though, but yes, it > would seem to make sense for Wikimedia - established as its flag

Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo

2009/7/31 stevertigo : > Note also that anytime someone is blocked/moderated from a public or > open list, its a common-sense requirement that the list be given > notification of the block/moderation, along with an explanation of > why. This is standard practice on wikien-l, and I don't quite > un

Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations

geni wrote: > Nope. Many charities of various sizes rely on year to year donations. > Financial self-sufficiency is mostly limited to various internet > projects that manage to replace donations with ads and merchandise. Keep in mind Geni, that Wikipedia is not so much an "internet project" as it

Re: [Foundation-l] Stevertigo

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Tim Starling wrote: > I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private email > not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list thread. Stevertigo > is a long-serving and trusted (if passionate) member of the community. You forgot funny. Anyway, f

Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations

2009/7/31 stevertigo : > It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to > some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to > eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this > not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: > > My thought is that there may be other ways to enfranchise users who are > clearly community members, but who for some reason or another are inactive > on the projects themselves.  What those ways are, I don't know. One way could be to have

Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Tim Starling wrote: > Do you mean building an endowment? Because the Foundation management > believes that donors expect their money to be spent on charitable > activities, and that reserves should only be sufficient to cover > income fluctuations over the next few

[Foundation-l] Thanks to the WP Tech people

It's very good to see the English Wikipedia back and running smoothly again; my withdrawal symptoms were getting hard to handle :-). Seriously, thank you to all the people who fixed the problem. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@l

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: >> The rules did disenfranchise me, for example.  It doesn't bother me that I >> can't vote, but that said, I would've liked to vote if eligible.  I am not >> active on Wikipedia, but I do f

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

Right on. I detect ageism supplementing the recentism. But seriously folks, if fraud were the issue then confirmed identify would overcome the problem. The number-of-recent-edits criterion has two effects that bother me. 1. It effectively puts the vote firmly in the hands of producers not consum

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

2009/7/31 Steven Walling : > For me, the analogy is simple: just because you get a driver's license once > doesn't entitle you to drive for the rest of your life. Unless you actively do something wrong and get disqualified, yes it does. The analogy works for not letting banned editors vote, it doe

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] IRC Group Contacts Surgery, August 2009

Hi, On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 19:32, wrote: > A few years ago, I had asked that IRC have a searchable archive of > discussions.  I was told that there were daily logs and I could get one if  I > asked.  I asked, and was denied.  Until IRC commits itself to  openness, it > should have little to no i

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two editsa week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

And what about the people reading all the mail of all the mailing list, they know Wikimedia damn, they too should be allowed to vote. And the people making donations, they're supporting the projects too, they should get a vote. Or not. I'm not fond of the idea. Contributors to the project elect

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > When it is agreed that people can vote based on their mail contributions, > the one thing necessary is connecting people to their WMF user. When this > information is available on a user, the global user may be made known as a > voter

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

Hoi, When it is agreed that people can vote based on their mail contributions, the one thing necessary is connecting people to their WMF user. When this information is available on a user, the global user may be made known as a voter. In my opinion you do not want to involve people when there is no

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > When we have consensus on that one, someone has to count them.. So what > piority do we give it and, what do we bumb down the list ? Alternatively who > is volunteering to write the necessary software anyway and how are we going > to

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Guillaume Paumier wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> >> I think that mailing lists posts should be treated as edits. > > Thank you; this sentence made my day. Thank you, too. We share our happiness with each others' sentences. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" ru le decided?

Brian writes: > In my view, the only reason to limit voting to editors with a certain number > of edits is to limit the effects of ballot stuffing. Not as much ballot stuffing as canvassing. Most of the inactive users do not see the sitenotices and therefore they aren't aware that an election is

Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?

Hoi, When we have consensus on that one, someone has to count them.. So what piority do we give it and, what do we bumb down the list ? Alternatively who is volunteering to write the necessary software anyway and how are we going to get it operational ?? PS I like the idea Thanks, GerardM