[Foundation-l] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
LinkedIn Wikimedia, I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - koteche koteche mcintosh Teacher at www.pianolessonsmanchester.com Manchester, United Kingdom Confirm that you know koteche mcintosh https://www.linkedin.com/e/-t9tct-golry3iv-3z/isd/3123607564/7EIw5FuB/ -- (c) 2011, LinkedIn Corporation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
LinkedIn Wikimedia, I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - koteche koteche mcintosh Teacher at www.pianolessonsmanchester.com Manchester, United Kingdom Confirm that you know koteche mcintosh https://www.linkedin.com/e/-t9tct-golrzobj-5m/isd/3123607564/7EIw5FuB/ -- (c) 2011, LinkedIn Corporation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
A) This is completely off-topic. B) It sounds like exactly what we already have. (Recurring donations are new, but are now an option - with the exception of some Teir 1 chapter countries.) Really? It is the most pressing topic of our times. Surely you can see that. And you can see how pissed off governments are with Wiki!!? Maybe you live in a bubble and are not really arsed.. But there are MILLIONS of people out there who appreciate Wiki and its foundation. the pressure it is putting on governments and are appreciative for the collective voice it as given. it is a good time to make it bigger and better without compromising the principles. Able to adapt quickly to any government or court actions leveled against it. Surely you can see that? Can't you? Wiki can and must branch out. Use the brand to form television programs internet programs fund research make films create a international on line library. The options for freedom are endless. But it takes commitment..That includes the people who use wiki every day! What better way be a member for £2 per month! With TOTAL transparency! On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: I would say that (as Erik said) in some cases it's a good idea. I doubt that we could have done the work we did on Strategy wiki, had it been housed on meta. Some wikis wish to set different standards for what can be included, and that's difficult to do if you have an extant wiki that has its own standards and rues. pb ___ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 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 Jan 31, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, The milk has spilled so it is time to mop up. As we gain more experience, we learn that having new wikis is often a bad idea in the long run. We live we learn.. Thanks, GerardM On 31 January 2011 14:25, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 January 2011 20:33, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Such a solution would make it easier to fold separate wikis (such as a conference wiki) back into Meta when we were done with them, too. Why fold them into meta afterwards rather than just use Meta from the beginning? Isn't the whole point of the proposal that we stop creating new wikis for everything? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
How realistic is that? Things change and this is completely voluntary. It just means Wiki can branch out into-film making supporting initiatives and communities in places where light needs to shine. Gets people motivated. At the moment Wiki stands for everything!!! People are looking up to it as a Brand. and it IS a brand whether you are ideologically opposed to that term or not... as the case may be. People choose to donate just like before. But on a regular basis. everyone can see the fund. Everyone is part of the story. this GALVANIZES support. Shoes governments the POWER of public opinion. Creates a virtual community striving for information in a world where information is key.. To just side line this idea is sort sighted. On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:46 AM, koteche mcintosh kotechemcint...@gmail.com wrote: Why can't people pay £2 per month and be a member of Wiki-everything! Better than [pledging. Have a on line active site that tells you what is going on how much money there is! Get a members package? What do you think?! The principle is that everything is free. You can donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, but the Foundation has a core belief in not advertising or requiring subscription. -- ~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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
Better put!!! Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access to accounts and a permanently donating community. It does not mean that there will be a change in the business modal (free and accessible) but it will give the wiki community (all people that use and contribute etc) a sense of it self! Also there is more and more media u-tube etc and wiki has a strong position to protect! As the increasing threat from the internet governments feel to be real. Wiki is in a position to be at the forefront of a positive change in a global community. It already is. Such a scheme will also be a litmus test of the global support for Wiki and the freedom it represents. People are a force to be reckoned with On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/01/2011 13:10, koteche mcintosh wrote: People choose to donate just like before. But on a regular basis. everyone can see the fund. Everyone is part of the story. this GALVANIZES support. Shoes governments the POWER of public opinion. Creates a virtual community striving for information in a world where information is key.. Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access to accounts and a permanently donating community. ___ 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] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
NO ADS just KNOWLEDGE! On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM, koteche mcintosh kotechemcint...@gmail.com wrote: Better put!!! Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access to accounts and a permanently donating community. It does not mean that there will be a change in the business modal (free and accessible) but it will give the wiki community (all people that use and contribute etc) a sense of it self! Also there is more and more media u-tube etc and wiki has a strong position to protect! As the increasing threat from the internet governments feel to be real. Wiki is in a position to be at the forefront of a positive change in a global community. It already is. Such a scheme will also be a litmus test of the global support for Wiki and the freedom it represents. People are a force to be reckoned with On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/01/2011 13:10, koteche mcintosh wrote: People choose to donate just like before. But on a regular basis. everyone can see the fund. Everyone is part of the story. this GALVANIZES support. Shoes governments the POWER of public opinion. Creates a virtual community striving for information in a world where information is key.. Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access to accounts and a permanently donating community. ___ 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] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
Why can't people pay £2 per month and be a member of Wiki-everything! Better than [pledging. Have a on line active site that tells you what is going on how much money there is! Get a members package? What do you think?! On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: 2011/1/29 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com: Having many wikis is an ongoing source of irritation for many, and it would be great to resolve this issue. Are there good arguments *for* having separate sites? Yes, and I think most people generally underestimate the complexity of the issue. The reasons for WMF to spin up separate sites have varied, but to try to put it as simply as possible, a dedicated wiki, in all technical and social respects, focuses collaborative activity, which can enhance productivity and reduce barriers to participation. In the case of e.g. StrategyWiki, it also allowed us to try some radical changes (like using LQT on all pages, or receiving hundreds of proposals as new page creations) without disrupting some surrounding context. I have absolutely no regrets about our decision to launch StrategyWiki, for example -- I think it was the right decision, with exactly the expected benefits. Meta itself has grown organically to support various community activities and interests that had no other place to go. It has never been significantly constrained by its mission statement. The What Meta is not page only enumerates two examples of unacceptable use: 1. A disposal site for uncorrectable articles from the different Wikipedias, and it is not a hosting service for personal essays of all types. 2. A place to describe the MediaWiki software. Its information architecture, in spite of many revisions, has never kept up with this organic growth, making Meta a very confusing and intimidating place for many, especially when one wants to explore or use the place beyond some specific reason to go there (vote in an election, nominate a URL for the spam blacklist, write a translation). So, let's take the example of OutreachWiki as a simple case study to describe the differences between the two wikis. 1) The wiki's main page and sidebar are optimized for its stated purpose; 2) As a new user, you receive a welcome message that's specifically about ways you can support public outreach ( http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcome ) 3) All special pages remain useful to track relevant activity or content without applying further constraints; 4) Userboxes and user profiles can be optimized for the stated purpose (e.g. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Languages_and_skills ) 5) There's very little that's confusing or intimidating -- the content is clean, simple, and organized. 6) If the OutreachWiki community wants to activate some site-wide extension, it can do so, focusing only on its own needs. On the other hand: 1) Activity is very low; 2) The wiki is largely in English; 3) Meta has a long tradition of hosting outreach-related content, and many pages still reside there or are created there. 4) The existence of yet-another-wiki brings tons of baggage and frustration (more dispersed change-tracking for users who want to keep up with all activity, more creation of meta/user page/template structures, more setup of policies and cross-wiki tools, etc.). It's not a given that 1) and 2) are a function of having a separate wiki. As we've seen with StrategyWiki, activity is largely the result of focused activation of the community. The small sub-community that cares about public outreach on Meta is ridiculously tiny compared with the vast global community that could potentially be activated to get involved through centralnotices, village pumps, email announcements, etc. So the low level of activity on OutreachWiki is arguably only a failure of WMF to engage more people, not a failure of a separate wiki. (It certainly makes all the associated baggage much harder to justify.) But, I think the disadvantages of working within a single system can be rectified for at least the four most closely related backstage wikis (Meta/WMF/Strategy/Outreach). I do think working towards a www.wikimedia.org wiki is the way to do that, importing content in stages, with a carefully considered information architecture that's built around the needs of the Wikimedia movement, a very crisp mission statement and list of permitted and excluded activities, a WikiProject approach to organizing related activity, etc. But it also would need to include consideration for needed technological and configuration changes, in descending importance: - namespaces (e.g. for essays, proposals, public outreach resources, historical content) - template and JS setup to support multiple languages well (e.g. mirroring some of the enhancements made to Commons) - access controls (e.g. for HTML pages) - FlaggedRevs/Pending Changes (e.g. for official WMF or chapter
