Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolutions from March 30th 2012
The diversity and the variety helps to react in a better way to the changes. The reduction of the ways to donate helps to control and to monitor, but gives less variety. Ilario On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Nathan wrote: > Since payment processing is not contemplated as a vector for receiving > funds, either in 2012 or beyond, it makes sense to permit processing only > where it provides a significant advantage in raising funds and where the > reliability and integrity of funds processing is not in doubt. As the > resolution states, all entities are permitted (and, I'm sure, encouraged) > to raise funds in other ways. > > While I personally believe that the FDC model is flawed, and that the > concept of the "wiki way" is not helpfully transferable to managing large > amounts of money, I think that under the circumstances the Board has taken > the best possible steps with these three resolutions. > > ~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] Invitations for Linkdin
He is a conductor of orchestra, he is member of WM CH and he has participated in Wikimania in Gdansk. Ilario On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Huib Laurens wrote: > Hello all, > > It came to my attention that people are using wikimedia mailing lists as > there primary contact adres for Linkdin. I guess that this is not the way > it should be done. > > Today I found: > > Felix Reolon using wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org as there primary > e-mail. > > i don't know him, but I'm sure somebody knows is him? > > -- > Kind regards, > > Huib Laurens > WickedWay.nl > > Webhosting the wicked way. > ___ > 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] A discussion list for Wikimedia (not "Foundation") matters
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > Hi all, > > We currently have this public list for Wikimedia Foundation matters, > as well as a private list called "internal-l" which in practice is in > large part used for WMF/chapters discussions, because chapter board > members are added to it by default. The latter is often used for > discussions that impact community members, but neither the discussions > nor the results are always a matter of public record. > I would correct that not *all* chapters board members have access in internal. The number of subscriptions were limited to three per chapter, as I know. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Communicating effectively: Wikimedia needs clear language now
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Tom Morris wrote: > >> Mostly though, thanks to the Internet and multinational corporations, >> godawful business jargon crosses all national borders. Words and >> phrases like 'onboarding', 'stakeholders', 'mission statements', >> 'platforms', 'proactive', 'sectors' and pretty much anything >> 'strategic', for instance. > > Terms like "strategy", "mission statement" and "stakeholder" have > concrete organizational meaning. Yes, they are also often used as part > of marketing copy or organizational copy in ways that are unhelpful, > because people who aren't good writers feel the need to plug holes by > picking from the shared vocabulary of organization-speak. That doesn't > make them meaningless, anymore than the fact that every idiot has an > opinion on quantum physics makes quantum physics meaningless. > I work in an airline company and for a person coming from outside it could be a real nightmare to speak about airline questions because the environment is really full of "technical questions" and "abbreviations". For me it has been hard at the start because it was frequent to use "ERP" for "Emergency Response Plan" but for me it was "Enterprise Resource Planning". A good compromise could be to create a "company dictionary" in order to help all persons to use the same words to define the same concepts and to help new persons to be part of the discussions. This solution solves a lot of conflicts and helps the communication. In Wikimedia environment the real problem is that anyone tries to translate some technical words connected with some legal systems and sometimes these words are peculiarities of these systems and could not have a corresponding in others. For instance in Paris I have looked in the word "entitlement" which seems to be connected with the US system's of NGOs but has no correspondent in the European legal systems (and sometimes it could "illegal" in some countries). Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Nathan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Béria Lima wrote: > > Jan-Bart and others have asked that you call him Jan-Bart. What part of > that is confusing? You can ascribe your first error to different custom; > continuing to ignore his wishes is simply arrogant and offensive, which of > course I'm sure is not your intent. In case of problem I may give you any freedom to mispell my name and my surname as many time you want, if this helps to stop here any further discussion around a name. I am experienced about that and I live already in a conflict of identity. I may offer myself like punchball of the mispelled name. Ilario aka Illario (mainly for German speakers) aka Ilarion aka Flavio aka Florio aka Ilaria aka Lario Valdelli aka Vandelli aka Baldelli aka Valdella aka Valdell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012
You have not understood the difference between a discussion in Meta and the transformation of this discussion in an "operational" implementation in the organization. This proposal has a lot of "bugs", it seems like a discussion made in front of the coffee machine. Formally your point of view is acceptable, but this solution cannot be implemented "as is" because your point of view remains hard to implement. I would be an inmate instead of a participant in "Pindaric flights". Ilario On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Joan Goma wrote: > Hi Jan, > > It is not a problem of lack of time or lack of communication channels. It > is a problem of lack of participation of chapters and fear of change. > > These proposals have been in meta for months. [1] The answer to many of the > questions raised here have been in meta for months. [2] > > The problem is that it is very difficult to reform a cemetery if you need > the participation of inmates and even more if when you're about to decide > then all of them suddenly resurrect to oppose. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Risker wrote: > > The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise > and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to > fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they > require. > > The chapter-selected seats...nobody knows what criteria are being used, > what specific expertise is being sought, what skill-set is being selected > for. The end result, as best I can see from the first two rounds, is "the > same people who could easily have run for election, because they're well > known and widely active in the community". > > Risker/Anne Do you mean that the selection by the community applies some neutral parameters? Do you mean that all users participating in the elections through the community use these neutral parameters to put their vote. Do you mean that the other seats are assigned with "open" and "transparent" process? I would know if your criticism is applied for the process of selection of all seats or only for the seats of the chapters because in this last case you miss something. And this "something" is exactly the "neutral" evaluation of the whole process. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vice President?
I am speaking about a company environment. In my company (Swiss based) the CEO has dismissed his role and now it's VP because he is in the board. This role has the aim to moderate the board's meeting when the President is not present or to sign contracts instead of the President. Ilario On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 1 February 2012 11:59, Ilario Valdelli wrote: >> Really strange because the title of president and that of >> vice-president belong to the board. > > The title "President" is sometimes used by the chair of the board, but > "Vice President" is usually an executive, non-board, position. Large > banks, for instance, often have hundreds of VPs - it's a > middle-manager rank. > > ___ > 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] Vice President?
Really strange because the title of president and that of vice-president belong to the board. Do you know that the board should not have any conflict of interests and should do the benefit of the overall foundation? If the titles of President or Vice-President is in charge of an executive person, there is a conflict of interests. Ilario On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Stuart West wrote: > That's kind of an American thing I think. Many organizations here have Vice > Presidents, but instead of having a President have someone with the title CEO > or Executive Director instead. > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Resolution:Developing Scenarios for future of fundraising
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Pronoein wrote: > > Why does the Board of Trustees think that WMF should raise the «maximum > possible amount of money»? > Why not ask for what is needed and nothing more? > I agree. A no profit association should raise the "opportune" amount otherwise there a "profit". Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] News from Germany: White Bags and thinking about a fork
On 23.10.2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > >>> The German poll made clear, that not any category based filter will be >>> allowed, since category based filtering is unavoidably non-neutral and a >>> censorship tool. >> Who the hell are you to forbid me or allow me to use a piece of >> software? I want to use this category based filter, even if it is >> unavoidably non-neutral and a censorship tool. And now what? >> > We are the majority of the contributers that make up the community. We > decided that it won't be good for the project and it's goals. We don't > forbid you to use an *own* filter. But we don't want a filter to be > imposed at the project, because we think, that it is not for the benefit > of the project. Point. > > nya~ > Which project? de.wikipedia or Commons? If the filter will be applied to Commons, I assume that de.wikipedia must be conform with the decision of the other communities. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Fae wrote: >> If the members of de.wikipedia.org are *unaffected by explicit sexual >> images* because there are already ahead as they practice bondage or >> BDSM, it doesn't mean that all person of the world are so evolute in >> sexual matters. > > I find these sorts of comments personally offensive, likely to disrupt > any forming consensus and appear to promote stereotypes. Please keep > in mind the principle of conducting discussions in "respectful and > civil manner" as one might expect if applying > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:5P>. > > Should this list be hijacked by these sorts of comments then I see no > point in staying subscribed to it. > > Thanks, > Fae > Do you see which kind of comments there are in this thread? Do you think that this thread has been opened in a "civil and respectful manner"? At least I have used a generic reference, someone here has give a *direct personal offense*, he is not really a person who can educate about civilization and respect. Please be kind to apply the same measure for all comments. Thank you Ilario Valdelli ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Julius Redzinski wrote: > On such a decision the Board should have before making any decision researched > really what raeders expect and want and this with empathy for different > regions and > the understanding that germany maybe has different needs than the arabic room > and > that a making them all the same is not a good idea, and not empathic at all. > Before a > Board decision there would have been to be a poll that really ask the right > questions, > not this fake thing with no impact at all. The way the Board acted on this > and now not > even says "yes, we fucked it up, we take the decision back and start at point > zero > again" is a shame for teh complete Wikimedia world and community. > > Second last point: Give back to the editors the responsibility to amke the > choice how the can > present their educational content to the readers. That is no Board decision. > If a > community says we don't need the filter, then the Board doesn't know any > better > about the needs and wishes of teh users of this project and shouldn't act > into it > this way. > > Last point: The Board should start fisrt thinking and then deciding. It would > reduce much > the danger of splitting the communities an the Wikipedias. The Board seems a > little > bit too american, first shooting by feeling threatend and then asking ... > That is not > the way the Board should work. So act responsible and take back the decision > until a really good decision process would have been made through ... > > Julius Redzinski (de:Julius1990) Please get one's breath and after answer me. Which community? German community? Do you think that German community represent all users? because you are opposing "the community" to the board, elected by the community. It means that this community is a little bit unstable because yesterday it elect a board and now it is fighting with it. de.wikipedia.org is used by a lot of persons of different cultures, so does it mean that the German community is taking a decision for all of these users? If the members of de.wikipedia.org are *unaffected by explicit sexual images* because there are already ahead as they practice bondage or BDSM, it doesn't mean that all person of the world are so evolute in sexual matters. What the poll of de.wikipedia.org means is that the use of the filter should not be applied "automatically" and the community needs to be consulted. In this case the survey should be addressed to all persons and not only to the German ones. After if de.wikipedia.org would impose to the world their decision, it seems to me logical that de.wikipedia.org will limit the use of their projects only to the countries where German language is spoken. to define them because German community is "the community") are assisting to this piece of theater. Please give us at least pop corns! Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content
On 09.10.2011 17:00, Julius Redzinski wrote: > That can just mean an italian solution. The Board is ignorant against the > community needs and wishes, while the Foundation was just some month ago, so > caring about the editors and to keep them happy and contributing to the > projects. If the filter should get forced on a project that voted against it, > then there can be just a strike the solution. Even Bunga Bunga Silvio is not > as igorant as our Foundation and Board. > > Ting and the others, leave the Board. You are not anymore taking care of the > interests of Wikipedia, but of expanding palns that never were discussed with > those who mainly write the Wikipedia. > > Julius Redzinski (de:Julius1990) > It's interesting to see that mr.Bunga Bunga Silvio has the same behavior as you have to solve conflicts. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
On 08.10.2011 11:11, Ray Saintonge wrote: > > I'm happy that the Italian language Wikipedia is back in business, and I > hope that in the future projects will find better ways to protest than > suicide strategies. The key point is that Wikipedias are based on > languages, not countries. For Italian there is a high correlation > between language and country, but that does not mean that there are no > readers in neighboring countries nor in the larger Italian diaspora. > Other major languages are official in several important countries, and > it would not do to shut one of them down in response to a bad proposed > law in only one country. > > Protesting bad laws should be a responsibility that belongs at the > chapter level, under the assumption that it is the chapter that is most > familiar with the laws of its country, and what can be done with the > least harm to those around them. > > Ray Honestly I don't appreciate this kind of analysis. It's like to say that the strikes are disruptive because the strikes are bad for business. If the strikes would not be disruptive, probably no one will defend their rights with strikes. In that way I would say that the strike of it.wikipedia has demonstrated that it.wikipedia needs to have some rights to be alive. We have two ways: to be passive or to be active. If we choose the passivity, it means that we can only organize a system of proxies like done in China or to organize some workarounds to make Wikipedia available to the person living in totalitarism. The Italian community has demonstrated that they would be active: I live in Switzerland, where Italian is a national language, and I can assure that the Swiss users have understood the problem and approved the strike. I agree that Wikipedia must not close for any kind of problems, for example to solve economic problems or to solve the problem of desertification, but there were in discussion some principles that would have put Wikipedia to operate "without freedom" (I would underline this point "without freedom"). Here there were in discussions some principles that would have broken some pillars of Wikipedia: it means *a free and neutral information*. Italian Wikipedia has defended these pillars and not a "general" problem. I have not understood the points of some persons saying that Italian community has broken the settlement with the users. There is no sense to food a body if this body is risking his health. I need to heal the body and after to food it. If I can heal and food it, it would be better. In my opinion some persons here think that the pillars of Wikipedia are like the Tables of the Law of the Holy Bible, they EMANATE freedom and neutrality with their presence. Probably we need to be sure that we apply them in Wikipedia but also that the local government give us the ability to *apply* them. Please be kind that the whole world is not like US or Canada. Please don't "globalize" the world with the idea that the pillars of Wikipedia can be applied in any countries as you apply them in North America. In some places the pillars of Wikipedia can generate conflicts. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Crazy video (sorry if he has only subtitles in Italian)
A video about the request of some dictators to re-open Wikipedia: http://tv.repubblica.it/mondo/gheddafi-e-gli-altri-cosi-i-dittatori-salvano-wikipedia/77714/76104 Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: It.wikipedia will be turned on
Sorry for the cross-posting, but I write here what I have already submitted to internal. It seems that there is the majority to put it.wikipedia.org alive again in the following hours. The law has not been approved yet but the committee, who has in charge the proposal, has accepted some amendments like that of the paragraph 29 (which is the point in discussion in it.wikipedia.org). It means that a proposal will be submitted to the approval of the Parliament but it's not sure that it will be approved or not. The Parliament can: A) reject the whole law B) approve the law but reject the amendments C) approve the law and the amendments At the moment there is still a big conflict in the Parliament to proceed with the point A but if the point A will be approved, the feeling is they will proceed with the scenario C. Anyway what is very important is the impact of the action of it.wikipedia.org in Italy and how it has been perceived, and I think that this is an interesting point like "post-mortem" phase to analyze some results: A) Wikipedia is considered in Italy like a "vital"service, important like the power supplier or the transportation and the strike in Wikipedia has been considered like a strike of the railroads B) The impact in all persons have been strong and all of them have understood what is in discussion and the consequences of paragraph 29. In my opinion Wikipedia has supplied to a missed information in the media C) No one understand that the editors in Wikipedia are volunteers and this is not a real strike or a "public" service (this is really a strange feedback) These are three important points, in my opinion, that can help to understand what Wikipedia is for any normal people in Italy. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
On 05.10.2011 20:43, Austin Hair wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Theo10011 wrote: >> There seems to be a situation developing at Italian Wikipedia related to a >> local law that would infringe neutrality on Wikipedia. The discussions even >> mention a possible blackout/lockdown in reaction. > Currently, anything I try to access at itwiki gives me the standard > vector template with an empty green bar at the top.[0] If I were to > take anything away from this as a casual reader, it would be > "Wikipedia è rotto." > > Make a logout and after make a new login. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
On 04.10.2011 22:19, Nathan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, teun spaans wrote: >> Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed, not >> yet in affect. >> > It's a protest, they are hoping to influence whether the law is passed or not. > > ~Nathan When you write in Wikipedia, you are the main actor of your culture. You are an "active" member of the culture and you are not a spectator. When you see that someone is killing the freedom and it's forcing to don't be an actor of the free culture and he would steer the culture, you have only two choices: or to be passive and to stop to write, or to be active and to understand that you can defend your rights. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Nathan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: >> >> >> The question is that all Internet people in Italy is having strike >> because the project of law can be stopped if not approved. If it will >> be approved, it's harder to do something. >> >> It means that any action must be done now. >> >> Ilario >> > > > Sure, I understand. My immediate gut reaction was that I'm leery of > Wikimedia projects, of themselves and independent from the WMF, > getting involved in political advocacy and protest actions. On second > thought, though, I suppose if a U.S. law placed an untenable burden on > the English Wikipedia, we might take some action in our organizational > self-interest. > > I do think the WMF should have a role in this decision; I suppose the > question of project self-negation hasn't really arisen in the past - > but I'm not sure that, as a general rule, projects should be able to > voluntarily make themselves unavailable. > The problem is that the current law of privacy in Italy it's sufficient and can assure to protect any person from calumny. This law is an additional prevention and it's unbalanced and will not assure the freedom in Internet because it is applying the same law of newspapers to Internet (bloggers, private persons and so on). The main point is that any blog or online newspaper of other website have 48 hour to make something, if you do nothing you will receive a penalty of a maximum of 12.500 Euros. If you do something before the 48 hour you need to put in evidence (probably in the homepage) that there is a correction. The question now is complicated and the Italian users are looking to a scenario of frequent requests and all sysops involved in the block and obscuration of pages to don't face the penalty and don't involve some editors in any risk. In 48 hours it's difficult to check something and probably the requests will be processed with a preventive block. It means that the solution that we have is to delete any article about living people because this will reduce the risk a lot. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Nathan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Donaldo Papero wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Here are the facts: the Italian parliament will discuss within few days – >> and most likely approve – a law which, among the other things, will >> introduce the duty, for every web site (included, and not limited to, >> Wikipedia) to publish amendments to previously published information. >> >> According to the proposal ( >> http://www.senato.it/service/PDF/PDFServer/BGT/00484629.pdf), the required >> amendment cannot be modified, nor commented, and must be placed in article’s >> body, in the same format and with the same visibility of the allegedly >> defaming text. >> Moreover: the amendment must be published upon every request, without taking >> into account whether the information is true or not and whether references >> are available for it or not. >> >> Also, please, be aware of the fact that (as for the recent Google and >> Microsoft cases) the principle that the proposed law is going to introduce >> will be applicable to “all” sites, not only Italian’s: if somebody from >> Italy will post any information on, say, en.wikip, the rule will make it >> mandatory for en.wikip to post an amendment, if required. Which, at least, >> will mean incoming legal issues or inquiries to be managed by WMF, with >> related expenses. In short words: this rule, if approved, will be a complete >> mess for Wikipedia. >> >> Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will make >> encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by >> others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see >> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia) >> to lock both read and write access to encyclopedia articles and to publish >> the following text as full screen sitenotice: >> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato (an English >> translation is available here: >> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Vituzzu/comunicato/en). This decision >> will be implemented as soon as possible, during the next 12 hours. >> >> Giovanni AKA Pap3rinik (sysop at it.wikip) >> >> > > > Hi Giovanni (or Donaldo?), > > Has anyone at it.wp been in touch with Foundation staff? Locking a > major wiki seems like a pretty big step, perhaps they could provide > some advice or resources? Am I correct in understanding this lock as a > protest of the proposed law, since it hasn't been discussed or voted > upon in parliament yet? Such a political protest seems like an > unprecedented step for a Wikimedia project. > > Nathan > The question is that all Internet people in Italy is having strike because the project of law can be stopped if not approved. If it will be approved, it's harder to do something. It means that any action must be done now. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
An official statement will be published in Foundation-l. The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's sufficient to edit from the Italian country. I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I publish in USA servers, but for the main numbers of Italian editors the question is not so easy. Ilario On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > 2011/10/4 Thomas Morton : >> I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: >> Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! >> > > Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so they have to > follow Italian law. > > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz > > ___ > 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] Informing chapters about closing/opening wikis (+ useful list)
Good execpt some errors. Italian is national language in switzerland. Ilario On 10 Sep 2011 00:54, "Robin Pepermans" wrote: An idea that I raised during a discussion between the language committee and Wikimedia South Africa was to inform chapters when a request for closing a wiki is made for a language that is spoken in a country which has a Wikimedia chapter. For this I made a list on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_per_Wikimedia_language -- it took me some time but I think it is well worth it. So when proposing a wiki for closure, you should inform the main chapter listed there so they have a chance to find interested people who can contribute to the respective project. The list can also be useful when opening projects. If wanted, I or formally the language committee could also directly inform chapters when a wiki is opened in a language spoken in one or more countries covered by chapters. Regards, SPQRobin ___ 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] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > Usually you will find rebranding as part to improve your already > destroyed image. If your image is good, your won't create a new brand > and start from the beginning. Is our image so bad that we would need a > restart? Otherwise we only loose some part of that, what we already > achieved, considering our image. > > I share your opinion that this logo sucks. No one without an real > interest will understand why we have such different lines inside the > logo. Additionally it is hard to print (blue, light gray). > > Tobias I think that this study helps us to understand that there is no brand to represent all projects. Most of all for communication matters or to explain that Wikipedia has sister projects, we are used to create the "planetary system" of Wikipedia with all other logos around it. Basically there is no brand and no name or no communication facilities to use one logo for all projects and to explain that Wikipedia is not only Wikipedia. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Improving links between chapters and the Foundation
On 03.09.2011 18:55, Jon Huggett wrote: > On Sep 3, 2011, at 09:25 , WereSpielChequers wrote: > >> Increasing the mutual overlap of boards is a tried and tested way of >> reducing such tension, it doesn't always work, (in wiki speak it isn't magic >> pixie dust) and we are in this situation despite having two WMF members >> nominated by the chapters. But it is an option and it is a governance model >> that lots of organisations find works for them. > +1 > > Many other organizations use mutual overlap of boards to help communication, > foster collaboration, and share skills (e.g. fundraising): e.g Action Contre > La Faim and Opportunity International. There use a variety of ways of > managing "conflict of interest", such as by defining whether overlapping > members have a veto, vote or voice. Wikimedia Foundation has two board > members selected by chapters, without any pressing and immediate concerns > about "conflict of interest". If chapter boards want overlapping membership > with WMF, or other chapters, there are many ways to make it work. The members selected in the WMF's board by chapters are not "representatives" of the chapters. They are only candidates that the chapters have selected and NOT evaluated in the point of view of the chapters. A potential candidate, for example, can be accepted although he/she has never be in touch with the chapters. This has been the request of WMF. So, to be honest, there is no overlapping. In the other hand there is no knowledge sharing to improve because the chapters and the WMF are really different. WMF is not an association, for example, if you would be member of WMF and make a subscription, you can't. WMF has no knowledge of the local environment. The only benefit is to improve the communication and some minor questions. But, as suggested, it's sufficient to explain this proposal to the General Assemblies, they will judge the proposal and will vote it. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF
On 02.09.2011 22:02, Michael Snow wrote: > > For those reading whose memories may not be quite long enough - I assume > Florence is referring to Michael Davis here, not to me. The conflict of > interest policy was adopted in 2006, before I was on the board. I just > thought it would help to make the distinction explicit, as it wouldn't > be the first time somebody has gotten us confused. > > Meanwhile, on the subject of mutual board appointments between chapters > and the foundation, I figured I'd chime in as I helped push the idea for > chapters to select foundation board members in the first place. For one > thing, there's a very different power dynamic between the chapters > collectively choosing a couple members of the foundation's board, and > the foundation solely choosing a member of an individual chapter's > board. The chapter-appointed seats cannot really be controlled outside > of the selection process itself, so those board members can act as > freely as their colleagues, and certainly no single chapter can force > them to act in a particular way. This is partly by design, since the > ultimate fiduciary obligations of those board members are still to the > foundation rather than a chapter, and is why we emphasized that they are > not necessarily being selected as "representatives" of the chapters. > However, somebody appointed to a chapter board by the foundation would > be directly answerable to the foundation, and it could be fairly easy to > argue that they are an agent of the foundation. It undermines the > organizational independence much more dramatically. > > If the point is to improve communication, then a more practical approach > might be to designate "observers" who are not given authority but merely > sit in with a chapter board. That's assuming that the chapter board > level is one of the places where it makes the most sense to add a > communication interface. > > --Michael Snow It would have been sufficient to have some members that understand how chapters work. Every time I read some comments of WMF, I am really astonished that they don't know the basis of the organization of the chapters. I am really disturbed that every time WMF forget that a chapter is based on bylaws and on General Assembly. You make the assumption that it is the board of any chapter to take the decisions, you forget (but is seems to be usual in WMF) that any decision of the chapters board can be changed by the General Assembly and that the board reports to the General Assembly who approves every year the projects and the budget and the financial year. This is not a choice of the chapters, but this is the legal consequence connected with the local legal system (in Switzerland it's the Civil Code art.60). The chapter is not the WMF where the board send out a letter, the executive team "makes an interpretation" of the letter and the other groups do what they have decided. The local chapter is based on the General Assembly. It means that, to improve the communication, no one must seat in the board, it is sufficient to participate in the discussion of the General Assembly and it would be better to speak the local language to answer to the members questions. The board will do what the General Assembly decides. In the other hand what I really suggest is that the chapters MUST select their WMF board members like "representatives" to fill up the gaps that WMF has. The problem of communication that WMF has, it's basically the lacking knowledge of the chapters and to solve this problem probably WMF should have a look inside itself. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 8/28/11 1:00 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: >> I think that developing such a legal entity should be a high priority >> for Brazilian Wikipedians to ensure that Wiki activities in Brazil are >> controlled by Brazilians. At the same time I don't think there is any >> value to having a WMF appointee on your board; such a person would find >> it difficult to function under circumstances of perpetual conflict of >> interest. No other chapter has such a clause. > > I had never thought of this before, but now that it has been mentioned, > I just wanted to disagree, quite respectfully because Ray is awesome of > course, and say that I think it is a very interesting idea to have a WMF > appointee on the boards of chapters. > > There should be very few cases where there is a "conflict of interest" > since chapters and the Foundation are deeply tied together always (and > that's a good thing). I think having a Foundation representative on the > board of chapters does present some possibly insurmountable logistical > issues (who will they be?) but I actually think such an arrangement > might be incredibly valuable for improving communication and > *decreasing* perceived conflicts of interest. Because there are two points: a) the board is elected (they are representatives of the General Assembly which is the owner of the local association) b) in some legal systems the members of the board (and in some others the majority of the members of the board) should have the nationality No problem to have a representative of the WMF in the executive and no problem to have them in the board if elected or approved by the General Assembly following the statements of the local bylaws. The conflict of interests is here: it's not WMF to choose or to propose the appointee, it's the General Assembly. Please be kind that a lot of local chapters have been accepted as *national* chapters thanks to the bylaws which have been analyzed by the local administration to be sure that there are no links or dependencies with another foreign association/foundation. The risk is that the local chapter can be rejected as national association if the link with WMF becomes restrictive. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 31 August 2011 17:02, Ilario Valdelli wrote: >> I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant >> agreement/fundraising agreement. >> >> Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further >> discussion. > > Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I believe Sue has stated in no uncertain > terms that the WMF is not going to enter into any more fundraising > agreements for the upcoming fundraiser, so your experience is > consistent with that. > > You are from WMIT, yes? The tracking chart says there have been legal > issues with transfering half your revenue from the last fundraiser to > the WMF. Until those are resolved, there is no way the WMF could enter > into another fundraising agreement with you. > No, no WM IT, a chapter all green or yellow, but what is the advantage to say the name of the chapter? The question is that the letter has generated a big modification and a big change. Now the question is managed with private negotiations. I don't think that the solution will be a neutral solution. To know if a chapter is or not is complaint, it is important to have a framework. This framework defines the guidelines for a chapter and assure the transparency. This framework will assure that an audit will be a "real" audit (neutral and impartial). This framework will assure the transparency. At the moment a system of parameters to decide if a chapter can participate in the general fundraising it's not well defined. These parameters are decided case by case, country by country and in general with a specific negotiation. The letter of the board has defined a first schema of a framework (to take part in a fundraising a chapter (any chapter) must have A, B, C, D). The aim of this letter is acceptable and it's in a good way. Probably it would have been more acceptable if there was fixed a deadline to adapt the local situation to this letter. The interpretation of this letter is becoming disruptive and is applying a different logic and a different evaluation for all chapters, basically a good letter is generating worst results. I can understand that the board must not take care about the "executive" matters, but if the member of the board see that the principles of their guidelines are misunderstood or that someone is changing the principles, the board should explicit these principles in a good way and correct the interpretation. The question will be more conflictual if the interpretation of this letter is very different from what the chapters have understood and what the "executive" team would propose. Basically this letter is generating a not neutral, impartial and conflictual system. I don't know if the board is proud of this. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 31 August 2011 09:34, Ilario Valdelli wrote: >> I asked if the proposal of grant agreement was negotiable and the >> answer has been "no"! > > The talk page of the grant agreement on internal-wiki would seem to > disagree with you. It is full of people pointing out problems or room > for improvement and Barry saying "Good point!" and making the > appropriate changes. > I mean that was not "negotiable" the choice to have grant agreement/fundraising agreement. Grant agreement have been considered mandatory without any further discussion. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Arne Klempert wrote: > > We did raise the bar for chapters to participate in the fundraiser as > payment processors. However, IMO the board's guidance provides enough > flexibility to let more chapters than just WMDE participate in 2011. > But again, the board didn't make any decision about individual > chapters, neither in favor of any chapter nor against. Of course we > had some conversations about the possible impact of our decision, but > too many things were unclear at the time to tell for sure which > chapters could participate in 2011. And even today I can't tell, since > there are ongoing conversations between some chapters and WMF. For your information. Some chapters are a little bit confused because what has been proposed is only the grant agreement and nothing else. I asked if the proposal of grant agreement was negotiable and the answer has been "no"! It means that there was no opportunity for the chapters to discuss and to solve some issues. My chapter, for example, can match most of all point listed in the letter and we were disappointed that it has been considered "not conform" without any discussion. The problem was that the documentation was published in our website and not in meta or in other WMF's web sites, but this is a minor issue and not a "blocking" problem. You understand that if the letter says that some chapters can be admitted if they match some points and after someone says that no chapters can be admitted, this is more than an interpretation. This a policy completely different. Honestly a "temporary" period to give to chapters the possibility to adequate their infrastructure to the new requests would have been more appreciated. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard wrote: > > But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics. > Ok, but is WMF an economic institution? Are chapters branches of WMF? The notable successes should be in no profit organizations. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28.08.2011 23:47, Mike Godwin wrote: > Theo writes: > >> Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability >> standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible >> than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure >> you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US. > > of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every > cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of > effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the > German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for > chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly > different. > > This is interesting because what has been pointed out it's that the chapters are insecure and they are risky. This is incomprehensible for chapters that receive an audit every year (audit done by an external company). I would say that in this case what is insecure is not the chapter, which is absolutely complaint with the local law, but it's insecure and unreliable the system of control applied by WMF. The chapters must take care of the local law, and this is sufficient and valid to drive a local fundraising. If the chapters are really independent and they are linked to WMF only with some agreements, I don't understand why we must speak about the US law for an European chapter. The WMF applies the US law to all of their affairs and can monitor and audit the relation with the chapters, but further these relations, the US law stops its validity. I agree that the German model is not valid for all chapters, and this happens for a lot of questions, one important question is that the WM DE manage different quantity of donations and that WM DE has chosen a different organization of the voluntary service. As to evaluate the maturity of a chapter we cannot compare it with WM DE, at the same time we cannot compare the reliability of one chapter applying a law in force in another country. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28.08.2011 21:00, Nathan wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: >> This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need >> to have a receipt. >> >> At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an >> amount to one national charitable association. A receipt is not >> requested if the donation is lower than a fixed amount (200 CHF ~300 USD). >> >> Ilario >> > > What you mean is that this is false for Switzerland. I don't think > Risker specified Switzerland in that part of her post. > > ~Nathan Sorry, I would explain in a better way. What Risker says is not documented, it seems to be an opinion. What I have tried to do is to give a "real" example of fundraising made by a chapter with tax exemption. So it means that I have documented my words. It could be better if someone can document what he says. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28.08.2011 21:00, Nathan wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: >> This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need >> to have a receipt. >> >> At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an >> amount to one national charitable association. A receipt is not >> requested if the donation is lower than a fixed amount (200 CHF ~300 USD). >> >> Ilario >> > > What you mean is that this is false for Switzerland. I don't think > Risker specified Switzerland in that part of her post. > > ~Nathan I mean in general. I have listed the situation in Switzerland because this is well known by me, but in the other countries it doesn't change a lot. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
On 28.08.2011 16:46, Risker wrote: > On 28 August 2011 04:47, rupert THURNER wrote: > >> 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard: >> >> +1. >> in switzerland we feel that a good target is to get 1 CHF per user and >> year as donation. not having a better means of calculating the users, >> we took 10% of the working population as guess. for switzerland that >> means, 8 mio inhabitants, 4 mio working, 400'000 users, i.e. 400'000 >> donation. >> >> any measure that brings down the donations means that we are failing >> to make the people happy about wikimedia projects, and thats a path we >> probably do not want to walk. >> >> > > and could easily lead to concerns from outside agencies and individuals as > well. The hypothetical that we were "losing" donors because in many > countries tax receipts could not be issued has turned out to be false - > because many chapters that received a percentage of local donations were > still not able to issue tax receipts last year. Realistically, given the > basic chapter agreement, there are many that will never be able to obtain > the local equivalent of "charitable organization" status. This is incorrect because to receive tax exemption a person doesn't need to have a receipt. At least for Switzerland the donor can only indicate to have donate an amount to one national charitable association. A receipt is not requested if the donation is lower than a fixed amount (200 CHF ~300 USD). http://www.wikimedia.ch/index.php?title=Donate/en&setlang=en In general this is valid also for other countries (and in some of them it's sufficient to have a receipt of the transaction). I don't know who has said that the tax receipts have not been issued and the persons were not able to receive the tax exemption, but this is incorrect. In WM CH some receipts have not been issued *automatically* because we have received donations with incomplete data (the address for example), but these persons have never requested one. In general some of them prefer to donate locally because they would be sure that the money is spent for local projects and not for tax exemption. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 1.3 billion of humans don't have Wikipedia in their native language
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:47 PM, wrote:
> A single dedicated person could be enough to put a project in motion.
> A dean of a Nigerian college who integrates Wikipedia article creation
> in the instruction plan ("if you create 200 Nigerian pidgin Wikipedia
> articles this semester you'll get X extra credit points for your
> degree") could be enough to get the project to 100,000 articles in a
> year (200 articles*2 semesters*250 students = 100,000 articles in a
> year).
>
I don't agree. Wikipedia is a "collaborative" encyclopedia, it's not
an encyclopedia.
It means that one person cannot "drive" the project because he will
impose a single point of view.
It makes sense where there are no encyclopedia in this language and
Wikipedia can be the first one, but it should be interesting to
analyze why there were no encyclopedias before.
I have experienced this solution in some minor languages and it
doesn't work. It's difficult to aggregate people around a small core
of articles because they are attracted by more active languages or
because they don't have sufficient knowledge of their daily language
to put their ideas in written sentences. It seems strange, but if
someone should use their daily language (technically it's a "change of
linguistic register") to write something, they like to switch language
and to use English or Hindi or Chinese.
Some languages don't have a literature, don't have words to translate
technical words of legal words, don't have a dictionary or a formal
grammar. It means that the community should build their written
language around Wikipedia in order to start to contribute. It's
another project.
Ilario
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 1.3 billion of humans don't have Wikipedia in their native language
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > I am preparing document for Wikimania. Presently, I am in process of > analyzing data (SIL [1], Ethnologue [2], Wikimedia projects). I am using > Ethnologue data for population estimates. > The statistics are not realistic considering only the speakers. The "correct" statistics should have a "maturity model" to check if one language can receive one Wikipedia. This means, at least, to consider: a) number of potential writers/readers b) percentage of illiteracy c) level of education d) computer literacy This means that there is no sense to say that 30 Millions of Nigerian pidgin don't have a Wikipedia if this language is used for daily communication, it is not written or, if written, it is spoken by a population of 35% of literacy and 2% of persons with sufficient education level (these are not real data, but it's only an example). This means that the Pidgin Nigerian has a potential population of Wikipedia's users/writers of less than 1 million of persons, less than a dialect spoken in a region of Europe where the literacy is higher. I use the definition of user/writer because there is no sense to have a Wikipedia with passive users. Honestly I see a lot of statistics in the bosom of WMF with the *wrong* acceptance that one speaker = one potential wikipedian, this means that all strategies are wrong because they start from a wrong theory. I know that it's simple to put in one side the number of speakers and in the other side the number of users or the presence of one Wikipedia, but the world is not so simple. In that way the error is so high that all definitions are not realistic and probably "surrealistic". Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery?
On 16.05.2011 18:54, Béria Lima wrote: > I would like to question something: > > Why you people are not discussing that in commons? Because here people > can give opinions, in Gendergap mailing list too, but the people who can > actually change the policy are the commons editors. > > So, is not better spend all that talk in the wiki? > I have thought to don't reply to this cross-post but I have only indicated one opinion concerning the impact of Commons choices in the other projects. I would not influence the decision of the Commons community (probably in future I will subscribe to this list), but I would give to all communities a point of discussion to understand that an important project like Commons can influence other projects. In my opinion this image, put in all wikipedia home pages, can create two big problems: a) a problem of acceptance of "original works" b) a problem of acceptance of "promotional works" (original works are not accepted also to prevent promotional works) I understand the position of Commons, and there is no problem to have this content (but well categorized in order to prevent mistakes), but the decision of Commons has broken two important pilasters of Wikipedia, for example. In any case we could start from this experience to improve the guidelines of Commons and of all other projects, not necessary looking in this experience like a point of dispute. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery?
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > There is a long thread on the Commons and Gendergap lists about today's > featured image on Commons: > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/ > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-May/ > > It's an original piece of art by a Wikimedian, "in the style of" erotic > manga: > I could continue to say what said in the past. Commons is a "common repository for the various projects". Now the real problem is that Commons is in conflict with other projects because "original works" of pure fantasy (I don't include "original works" to document the reality) are not accepted, except in Commons. In general if I would use these images in Wikipedia, for example, I would be in conflict because I cannot use "original works" in this project (and this image is a "strict" original work). In my opinion Commons is moving the project in an incorrect direction and I would appreciate a lot if Commons will divide the project to receive "original works" of pure fantasy in one repository and the documentary work in another in order to help the other project to understand what is original and what is not original. Commons should have the same rule of Wikisource/Wikibooks. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
On 10.04.2011 05:03, Dror Kamir wrote: > Are there people who would like to help me collect such cases like those > of Astrology, Kosovo, the Middle East etc. and/or cases that were sent > to arbitration which didn't help much and the like, and productively > analyze them in order to think of better ways to treat them and the > users involve? I am going to talk about the issue on Wikimania 2011 (in > Haifa), but there is no reason to wait. I believe that this is one of > the major reason why potential users are reluctant to join and new users > are driven out. > > Dror K I have a big list of "frequent" and "continuous" control of articles. But we need to face before all the problem to understand which is the truth. A person who lives in a continuous and frequent "wrong" campaign of communication is absolutely sure that what he is going to defend is the truth. In my opinion the arbitration committee should face this big problem. If I am daltonian, I will defend with all my efforts that this object is brown and not green. I will accept that this object is green only if someone could explain me that I am daltonian. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:52 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: >> >> Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at >> large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct >> responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community to >> revoke their representation. >> >> Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of >> representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is >> very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people >> belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise >> meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged >> that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the >> definition of "community member") are members of chapters. I have a hard >> time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the >> community. They're representative of people who like to join chapters. >> >> Risker/Anne > > changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away > from the original subject of moderation > > As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump in :) > > I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or > very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and > could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the > second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was > our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to > improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next, > will be better. That's something we all want to see. > The question has not an answer. The chapters select the board members internally and the selection must be *transparent* for the chapters and not for the communities. In few word it must be transparent for Wikimedians and not for Wikipedians. The document which describe the process is available to all persons instead and it has been approved by the WMF board, it's sufficient in my opinion to assure a transparency to any external person. To have a feeling how the process of selection is transparent for the Wikimedians, it's very simple because it sufficient to ask to be member of a chapter (the membership is not linked with the citizenship or with the language or at least it is what happens in a large number of chapters). If the process is not transparent in a chapter, the problem is connected with the chapter and not with the process. All board members of local chapters are informed and they must inform internally the other members. I don't understand the question of transparency because in these terms also the WMF board meetings could not be judged transparent (it's an example but there are a lot of other internal processes in WMF which are not open to external participation but it's normal). Please... the selection of chapter board seat it's not a "reality show". There is a moderator who assure that the process follows the agreement with the foundation and that it's "democratic" for all chapters. Second point: The board members are selected by a tiny number of representatives. I don't agree. How we calculate the "importance" of this small community? Counting members? Counting the number of edits for each member? Counting how many surnames they have? The question is analyzed in a simple way here, but it's a more complex in the reality. The "universe" Wikipedia is formed by different bodies and every bodies focus their interests in different matters. The chapters probably are more interested in the fundraising, in the relation with media and so on. In their decision they analyze these parameters and in my opinion the selection of chapters bring a richness in the WMF board because they give an opportunity for good candidates who could not have a chance in the community selection process because they may be unpopular but experienced. In this division of the process of selection I can only see a diversification of different point of views which can assure an heterogeneity in the WMF board. For a board who accepts a big challenge, this can be a big improvement. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Umberto Eco on small languages/dialects Wikipedias (Aristotle article)
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:08 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 19 September 2010 12:42, Ilario Valdelli wrote: > >> It is normal because any standard language has different registers, the >> dialect has limited registers and in general only for daily and familiar >> use. > > > This, by the way, is why we don't have multiple English Wikipedias - > in the higher registers, all the dialects (which are frequently all > but mutually incomprehensible in the lower registers) converge and > educational English is quite consistent. The only major dialectic > variant is American versus British spelling, and anyone who reads one > can read and often write in the other. > > > - d. > Yes, the question of English is different. The dialects and local languages in Europe are generated by: A) a form of "regionalism" or local adaptation of a standardized language B) local languages derived directly from from Indo-European root or from an old language like Latin (i.e. the Sardinian languages). These local languages don't have a large presence of registers and the standard language substitutes them for *different kind of registers* (i.e to write administrative documents). For this reason there are persons who use Italian in some geographical areas with different accent and with a substratum of local language. It can be considered like a "regionalism" but this situation lives together with local languages which have a strong derivation from an old language from whom they keep archaisms or old syntax. An example that I have faced is a local language in Calabria which is an old Greek not derived from current language spoken in Greece but generated probably from a local form of Greek due to the presence of Byzantium in this area in the Middle Age. The problem is that the regional languages are disappearing because they would be "official language" and the local government forgot that the vitality of these local languages is in the daily use. In few words the local governments focus their effort in a high level, to build new registers, and not to support the low levels and the low registers. In the same time the large use of Italian in the media is generating a form of local regionalism which is replacing the local old language. The result is that the young people are changing their language in a standard Italian with interference of local language (most of all in the inflection). The English languages spoken in USA or Australia, for example, are more or less similar to this last situation: it is not a derivation from an old root of English language, but it's a "local" adaptation of the standard English. The example that I have is the Italian spoken in Switzerland (who I live) who is influenced a lot from French and it's also used in high registers, but for daily use the persons continue to use a local form of the Lombard language. This Swiss Italian language is derived from the standard Italian with some small differences most of all in some colloquial expression or in some accent and with an "enrichment" of words derived from French or from local dialect. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Umberto Eco on small languages/dialects Wikipedias (Aristotle article)
On 19.09.2010 13:01, Marcus Buck wrote: >An'n 19.09.2010 11:32, hett Mark Williamson schreven: >> We have heard this type of criticism before, that lower-prestige >> varieties or languages that are not "official" or "national" languages >> are somehow intrinsically incapable or unsuited to encyclopedic >> writing. Article quality on a Wiki is not high or low due to some >> intrinsic characteristic or trait of the language variety used, it is >> a result of the content not being well-developed. Also, many languages >> in a relatively small territory does not mean living in a ghetto; on >> the contrary, count how many national languages there are in Europe, >> then count how many across all of Latin America, then take a look at >> economic indicators and you'll see that there is no necessary >> correlation between linguistic diversity and poverty. >> >> -m. > > Estonian is a nice example. There are only 1.25 million speakers of > Estonian. That's a rather low number. Less than the speaker numbers of > most of the Italian tongues Eco is talking about (Piedmontese has 2 > million, Sicilian even 8 million). But the Estonian-speaking society is > in no way inferior to other societies. If Siclian or Piedmontese were > not suppressed by the Italian standard language and were allowed to > establish their own education systems there would be no problem. There > would be no "ghettoization". > > Marcus Buck > User:Slomox > The example of Eco is a little bit complex. In few words: an article about philosophy written in a dialect has not the same value of another written in a standard language. It is normal because any standard language has different registers, the dialect has limited registers and in general only for daily and familiar use. The synthesis is in one sentence "Infatti il dialetto, ottimo per il comico, il familiare, il concreto quotidiano, il nostalgico-sentimentale, e spesso il poetico, alle nostre orecchie deprime i contenuti concettuali nati e sviluppatisi in altra lingua" which can be translated "The dialect, excellent for the funny, the homely things, the daily use, the nostalgic memories, and frequently for poetry, lowers in our understanding the conceptual contents born and developed in other language". It seems to me normal. The standard Italian has had eight centuries to become the current standard language, and the Latin has been used in Italy for a lot of time to write scientific and philosophical books (and it is still used for ecclesiastic matters). I understand the position of Eco because for eight centuries no language has been ghettoized in Italy, if the Italian standard is used as "super-language" probably there is a reason. The process for a dialect to be a language is long and complex. In the opposite side the Italian standard is not suitable for familiar language: it's a "standard" and aseptic language without "nuances". If a dialect would be a language, probably it should accept to lose the wealth of words and expressions for daily communication. It is what happened for Rumantsch Grischun and Limba Sarda who are "artificial" super-languages not used in the families or in the group of friends, but at the same time so weak to clash the expansion of more common standard languages. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Umberto Eco's interview
Dear all, I have checked in my in box but it seems that this mailing list has not received this news. The Italian project w...@home supported by Italian chapter and the Wikinotizie has organized an interview some months ago with Mr.Umberto Eco who is a philosopher and literary critic known outside Italy for the novel "The Name of the Rose". A translation can be found here: http://it.wikinews.org/wiki/Intervista_a_Umberto_Eco/Traduzione The reaction of the Italian network has been very positive (http://stats.grok.se/it.n/201006/Intervista_a_Umberto_Eco). The interview is interesting because Mr.Eco is a big cultural point of reference in the Italian environment and he is very curious of Wikipedia's movement. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 24 June 2010 15:04, Ziko van Dijk wrote: >> - Scope and name: Maybe it would practically make no big difference >> whether the project is called "simple" or "for kids". Poor readers and >> adult beginning readers (natives or not) tend to read texts that are >> meant for children anyway. It could make a difference in promoting, >> though. A scope question can also be whether certain kinds of explicit >> images are allowed. > > I strongly disagree. There is a big difference between simple language > and simple concepts. Children need simple concepts (basically, you > can't assume as much prior knowledge because they haven't had time to > learn things that adults consider to be common knowledge). Adults that > are just learning a language need simple language because they haven't > learnt complicated vocabulary yet. > I would put the accent in this concept most of all because there are not only adults but also students who has an intermediate level of knowledge of a foreign language. The problem of different linguistic "registers" (this is the technical name of the problem) is well known. An article about some legal issues can be easy for a no-technical reader, but can be judged weak for a lawyer. The trend is for a technical and exhaustive language but this will put Wikipedia in the condition to lose his own popular position in the preferences of readers. In Italian Wikipedia, for example, we have had long time ago a project with the aim to create a structure of any article of physics with a section for "easy readers". The project has failed because the most difficult point for a physician is to explain a complicated concept with easy concepts (and not necessary with easy words). In any case my vision is a Wikipedia where there are three buttons for each articles: easy, intermediate, advanced and any person can select their level hiding the unnecessary sections and the technical words. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On 14.05.2010 20:38, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > Many nudist will tell you that what happens on the beach stays on the > beach. There is no expectation that a photo taken by a friend, or > stranger for that matter, will end up on a public website. Indeed there > have been recent case including in the US, where people who have posted > intimate photos of another has been arrested and convicted under various > privacy laws. > > In a big *yellow* wall if a small point is red for me and orange for you, this doesn't change the color of the wall. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more >> injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of >> her making tea. >> > > It can be. Then again, an image of her making tea might be far more > injurious. > > Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit >> content seems appropriate to me. >> > > I agree. But then, I can think of dozens of other situations which don't > involve nudity or sexuality but which should follow the same procedures. > > Basically, if there's any reasonable chance the person would object to the > image, and the identity of the person in the image is not in itself > newsworthy/encyclopedic, we probably should require the person to give > permission. I don't know what the law is in that situation (I thought film > productions had to get some sort of permission for filming people, even in a > public place), but it seems like the right thing to do. Especially given > that Commons images are permitted (even encouraged) for use for commercial > purposes. > > One necessary exception would be for situations in which the identity of the > person is itself newsworthy/encyclopedic. If you snap a shot of a Mayor > accepting a bribe, the Mayor's permission is not needed. Additionally, I > suppose an exception could be made in cases where the image is so innocuous > that no one is likely to object. Perfect. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Nathan wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: >> Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the >> OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of >> view of copyright. >> >> In any case what means "injurious"? It can change in relation of the >> cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where >> the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot >> be considered "injurious"). >> >> Ilario > > It can't be? I think you (and Jussi-Ville) have a pretty narrow > concept of what might be injurious. If you release an image of > yourself to your friends, does that mean you'd be happy to see it on > the evening news? If you're tanning on the beach, is that permission > to have your image republished in a major feature film? Your argument > addresses what you believe the photographer should be allowed to do, > but ignores the potential for negative impact on the subject of the > photograph. That's pretty unfortunate. Please understand that one matter is the privacy, another is the injury for publication of nudism. We are speaking about nudism, probably the question of privacy must be solved in another discussion. I mean that solving the problem of nudism you don't solve the problem of privacy *in general* but I am not saying that the privacy is not important. > > Surely there is a way to meet educational goals without risking the > privacy or abuse of content subjects? There is tension between > cultural values, obviously, and some self-serving interpretation of > that tension (everyone seems to think they are being pressured to > abide by the values of the misguided), but there must be some middle > ground that allows for some minimal effective protection for people > who are not party to the armchair philosophical debate. > > Nathan > Most of all because the nudism is relative to the culture. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more > injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of > her making tea. > > Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit > content seems appropriate to me. > > Andreas > Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of view of copyright. In any case what means "injurious"? It can change in relation of the cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot be considered "injurious"). Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Another board member statement
On 11.05.2010 06:43, Kat Walsh wrote: > What I do support are tools and procedures that make it simpler for > users to choose what they see: I don't think anyone should have to > avoid Wikimedia projects because they fear that they (or their > children) will inadvertently see something they didn't intend to. Most > people never do; links are generally not surprising, and > sexually-themed media is generally only present in sexually-themed > articles. (As are depictions of violence, for that matter.) But a user > clicking on an unfamiliar term, or who is not aware that certain > categories of content are allowed on the projects, may be in for a > shock. > > I agree completely with this position. Any person must be free to see, but any person must be free to don't see. My personal point of view. Ilario WM CH ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A Board member's perspective
On 09.05.2010 02:04, Noein wrote: > > On 08/05/2010 20:52, Stuart West wrote: > >> (1) There were some bad actors at work (e.g. hardcore pornography >> distributors taking advantage of our open culture to get free anonymous >> hosting). (2) As a community (including the Board), we debated the issue >> too long and failed to drive closure and implement. (3) There are complex >> issues around _some_ of the content that is in a gray area and those >> complexities distracted us from dealing with the clearer cut cases. >> > In order to help us understand better the situation, can you refer > concrete examples of 1 and a link to the discussion mentioned in 2? > I would not speak for Stuart but I can give concrete cases of "politic propaganda" widespread in en.wikipedia and related cancellation of content with a different point of view. All that without any action of the community and with an evident non neutral position of sysops. I promise you to open another thread with all that points but I would like to discuss that like a different problem not related with hardcore pornography. After that I hope to receive your feedback. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 08.05.2010 23:02, Victor Vasiliev wrote: >> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy. >> > We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice > and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will > not repeat. > Probably this is happened twice because twice the community has been too weak to find a "quick" solution. The legal involvement of publication of explicit sexual images accessible to children is something established a lot of year ago in different legal systems, this is nothing that is happened only one or two months ago. The community has had time (and a lot of time). The request of a wake up of Jimbo is not an excuse. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 08.05.2010 17:48, Mike Godwin wrote: > I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is > given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary > circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers > will be controversial. (If they were uncontroversial, nobody would need > them, since consensus processes would fix all problems quickly and > effectively.) But rather than focus on whether your disagreement with the > particulars of what Jimmy did means that Jimmy's powers should be removed, > you should choose instead, I believe, to use this abrupt intervention as an > opportunity to discuss whether Commons policy and its implementation can be > improved in a way that brings it more into line with the Wikimedia projects' > mission. Once this discussion happens, it would not surprise me if the > result turned out to be that some of the material deleted by Jimmy will be > restored by the community -- probably with Jimmy's approval in many cases. > > I agree most of all with this point. I don't understand this dissatisfaction generated by Jimbo's decision. Commons is so careful with the copyright's violation and some decisions of Commons community has been perceived to be excessively "severe" to other communities, but in other ways Commons seems to be so unconnected with other kind of "legal" problems that I personally have thought to be in mistaken. In Italy, for example, the explicit publication of pornographic content in a public web sites is not allowed and any deficiency is treated *with "criminal" law*. The deleted images and the free access for children has been a strange situation until now with legal involvement in a lot of countries. The images have had neither a disclaimer or a warning concerning the children access and the feeling given to the users has been that of the indifference to the problem. I have never understood why the Commons community has not treated this matter so careful than the copyright's violation and the reaction of the community to Jimbo can only confirm me the feeling of "indifference". Now I see that Jimbo has managed the problem with urgency and asked to the community to fix the problem at last. I cannot see any other problem. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes in Language committee practice: ancient and constructed languages
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > This issue was discussed a number of times here. As some changes has > happened, you should know that. > > Requests for Wikisource in Ancient Greek and Coptic have became > eligible, as well as request for Ancient Greek Wikiquote. The > condition for those projects is to keep default interface in English. > > Rationale: Both languages have large amount of texts and it is > reasonable to keep them separately. At the other side, languages are > not living, which means that interface can't be written in those > languages. As the heritage written in those languages belong to the > whole humanity, there is no common modern language for those who use > those languages in scientific or cultural purposes, and English is > world's lingua franca, the default interface should be in English. I agree with this decision but probably it's better that the communities could change the interface. In my opinion the contributors of an old language may not be able to understand the "latin script" (IMHO the Greek should have the interface with Greek alphabet also to avoid the mix of different characters). I think that the better solution is to have an interface with the most similar living language like happened for Church Slavonic Wikisource. > > Consequences: All requests will be considered on case by case basis. > For some ancient languages there is a sense to have separate > Wikisource and Wikiquote, for some it is reasonably to have just > Wikisource, for some it is not. And it is because of various reasons. > > > The only comparable case with Esperanto is Latin, although Latin is > not an artificial language. As it is a living language, it can get the > full set of projects. > > Request for Wikipedia in Ancient Hebrew has been rejected. It is not > possible to have article about train in Ancient Hebrew and it is not > living language, which means that article about train won't be created > at all. > > Consequences: It is not possible to get Wikipedia in ancient language. > In my opinion also if there is an old extinct language the decision should be based on the *liveliness* of language. Probably some old languages are studied at school (like ancient Greek) and there are persons which are able to understand them also without a dictionary. Wikipedia should defend the "endangered languages" and if someone is not mother tongue but he is able to write and read (not necessary to speak), the proposal to open the Wikipedia in this language should be well accepted. The project could help the language to don't be forgotten. A decision moved to the "liveliness" based on the diffusion at secondary schools (excluded Universities) for example could be better. Some students would agree to write an article in old Greek for example and the teachers could support the initiative. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] policy and the guideline wikipedia - ja
kigen2700...@gmail.com wrote: > In Wikipedia Japanese version, the document with the template of principle > and guidelines up to the present time was operated from the start without > obtaining the mutual agreement of the community. In Wikipedia Japanese > version, the participant was doing principle and guidelines without > permission until 2007. The community simply solved by the decision by > majority without understanding Wikipedia 's principles until February, 2010 In general the principles of Wikipedia are the same for any communities. Neutral point of view, for example, is a basic principle which could not be changed. Any community could change everything which is connected with the application of these principles. The users decide the better way to reach these principles. If a community cannot applies the template of another community probably it's time to stop and to think which community has taken a bad way and who is applying principles decided internally but completely different from those of Wikipedia. What you are saying about Japanese Wikipedia it's very dangerous because the community *cannot rewrite* the Wikipedia's principles. In my opinion the Japanese question should be investigated in detail. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and Environment
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Teofilo wrote: > > How about moving the servers (5) from Florida to a cold country > (Alaska, Canada, Finland, Russia) so that they can be used to heat > offices or homes ? It might not be unrealistic as one may read such > things as "the solution was to provide nearby homes with our waste > heat" (6). > Or Switzerland not only because it's a cold country but in Switzerland it's already in place the idea to use "green energy" with a small additional cost. In this case the power supplier assure that this energy is produced with zero CO2 emission (i.e. hydroelectric energy). In my case (I am IT manager) I have provided my data center with a system of air conditioned with "free cooling", in this case when the external temperature is lower than 17 °C, the system of air conditioned is supplied with external air without consumption of energy. I have the energy costs reduced of 40% (my location in Switzerland has less than 17 °C at least for 50% of total days because the nights in Switzerland are cool). It could be 50% but I reuse the 10% to have "green energy". In any case the total amount is more than 50% of savings because the hot air is addressed in the offices (only during the Winter and Autumn) and the maintenance of system of air conditioned is drastically reduced with less problem of damage. At start it's a big cost to have a system of free coling, but after two or three years it's already refunded with the saved money. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > Read > http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers > > Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims > from this article: > > 1. English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000 > contributors, compared with a loss of about 4,900 during the same > period in 2008 > 2. There is an increase of bureaucracy and rules. > Not only "disenchanted" but disappointed most of all in any resolution of conflict because it is very complicated to understand how proceed to defend their point of view. The sysops are not so disposed to guide people in the right process or to unederstand the problem. The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia don't assure a neutral point of view but the point of view of expert users. If I would list here the articles which are nNPOV for the reason described above, I could be blacklisted for a large amount of email sent to the mailing list. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
Chad wrote:
> This list has really high traffic (depending on season, it fluctuates a bit)
> and it can be a bit overwhelming at times. Moderation isn't the answer
> though. The signal to noise ratio here remains fairly decent, so we wouldn't
> really gain anything through moderation (except some very tired mods!)
>
> -Chad
>
Yes, but keep in mind that active <> constructive.
I agree with Anders in this meaning, no moderation is required but
probably a call to the common sense of moderation ("Est modus in rebus").
Ilario
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters as intermediaries between WMF and communities (was Re: Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation)
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: > Using the chapters as intermediaries between the Wikimedia Foundation > and the communities is actually a solution that has been used in the past. > > It certainly feature a certain efficiency (proximity with the community > and common language). I agree > > However, I am not convinced it is a good idea to go this way. > > > That's WMF responsibility to assume their decisions, to inform > stakeholders of their decisions, and hopefully to offer channels for > stakeholders to give their feedback. I agree > > I am not convinced it is within the role of chapters to be the > intermediaries. And doing it regularly would possibly mislead WMF to get > further apports from contributors. > > I agree, but I would add that it is for the common good of WMF to have consultation with local chapters to know if a solution could be or not could be easily accepted by the communities. Surely the chapters have the feeling of the cultural environment of any wikipedians communities and of any subsequent reaction, but in any case everyone is responsible of his own decision. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A chapters-related question
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Anders Wennersten wrote: > I also like this approach > *On most informal level - a Working Group, carefully organized under a > "Working Group Organizer" who has a time-limited agreement/recognition > letter with the Foundation > *On intermediate level - a legally recognized organizations that could > support an interest group, the organisation either being dedicated to > the groups activity or being a supporting organization "hosting" the > groups activities. In either case it should be possible to get an > agreement in place without the full demands required for being > recognized as a Chapter. Personally I agree the second point with different levels of approach to the "local Chapter" status. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A chapters-related question
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Thomas de Souza Buckup wrote: > > *We are **a movement of autonomous volunteers: > * > > - *Instead of a legal entity, an open movement* > - *Instead of bylaws, a statement of principles* > - *Instead of legal representatives, task assigned peers* > - *Instead of internal finances, grants can go through partners* > > *Actions come first to material resources!* Nothing against but there is an important point missed... * Instead of a organization... Someone has stated here that to sign a chapters agreement, for example, it's important to have a legal entity or, at least, an organization. I think that it could be different also to discuss with someone because without an organization it's impossible also to found a point of contact (for example there is no legal representatives). IMHO the case of Brazil can be a *type* of chapter (for example a first step) and not a different type of organization (considering that there is no organization as I can see). Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A chapters-related question
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Michael Snow wrote: > > There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups > that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite > the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to > organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian > situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better > sometimes, or serve as a proto-chapter stage of development. Maybe > there's a benefit in having an association with some durability and > continuation, but without going to the effort of incorporation and > formal agreements on trademarks and such. It could also make sense to > have an organization form for a specific project and then disband after > it is completed, such as with Wikimania (somebody can correct me if I'm > wrong, but I understand the Gdansk team is planning something like this > as distinct from Wikimedia Polska). I would to stress that the real problem for any organization of volunteers is the *continuity*. I think that a aggregation of volunteers not included in a framework (like that of chapters) can be workable *only* with a well defined and time limited aims. When these aims are reached, the group is released. This is the example of Wikimania's groups (technically these groups can be called "task force"). The real problem is the status of volunteers because any person cannot assure a big and continuous presence for a lot of time. The chapters can face the problem with an organization which are becoming more and more reliable because these chapters are looking for a system to assure the continuity also if this goal it's complicated to reach. In any case they are in a good way, but I can't imagine how another system of communities can solve this problem quickly. Surely the chapters have a statute, a board and a light organization, but if they change the big percentage of the board every year they should face every time an organizational problem. In any case they have the tools to assure the continuity. IMHO another "framework" can only introduce real problems for continuity, for communication and surely could put the WMF always in the situation to "re-organize" the organization to make order in an *entropic* system (more simple to say "work of Tantalus"). I can only imagine that for any problem we should not only discuss the competencies, but also the point of contact because in a volunteers organization it could change a lot. After this introduction I see that it could be good to "re-use" the chapters organization for other types of project and probably to *extend* the concept of chapters with *different levels* of status. In few words... reuse the framework of chapters extending the types of chapters (it could be good also for some kind of newborn chapters of for WIP chapters like Macedonian WM). It is not new that personally I have always asked to involve the chapters in some other projects like Wikimania (please look the word *involve*) to assure a trusted organization for this kind a projects. In any case WMF always asks for help to the chapters in this project for big involvement of people or for scholarships, I don't know why this involvement cannot be officially done at start. In my opinion the role of chapters cannot be limited only to collect money and to take care for local communication. It's a poor adaptation considering the effort that they should do to find "the continuity". Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Commons: Service project or not?
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > some of them in languages I have no idea of like Japanese. This is of > course a meta issue and somebody (me for instance) could take an > initiative and create a project alerting other wikipedias of new image > arrivals (I vaguely remember we even had a script like this which was very > helpful in adding images), but I guess it would be a natural task for > Commons. Another example - actively searching for images and uploading > them: for instance, approaching users living in certain areas, searching > for PD images of works of art etc. May be I am just ignorant and all these > things are already going on, but then it is strange that I have never > heard of them being an active editor and being in principle interested in > meta issues. > > To conclude there is definitely a room for an active role for Commons, not > just as a passive file depository. > IMHO the role of Commons is not so clear and this discussion confirm it to me. We can identify two roles: * support and passive role for other projects * independent and active role to describe and collect media files We can discuss for long time, but a role is sufficient, two roles are "caos"!!! The real problem is that these two roles are becoming *in opposition each other* because the single projects are furnishing media files to Commons receiving not a service which can "help" the same project and two roles doesn't focus the Commons project in a clear aim. Frequently we will have discussions and I think that some projects have already planned that it's better to use their own repository to keep the media file instead of to use Commons. in the other hand the active role can help to improve the use and the description of the same file. My two cents... Commons *must* be an ancillary service for all projects, it must be a repository because in a technical point of view the management of files is different from the management of text. Nothing in opposition for an *another project* which can collect the media files in different pages for a better description and for a best evaluation. IMHO Commons is surely not perceived with a clear aim and for this position it's better to proceed to split it in two project: * Commons (like repository) with sysops elected by other projects which will use it like repository (and in this case the policies are decided by these projects) * another project (wikialbum???) which helps Commons to improve the quality of media files, to describe these files and to proceed to a production of articles where the aim is the collection of media files in some archives It seems to me a better solution also to proceed to face some competitors like Flickr. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Italia Award 2009 (most of all the award concerning Commons)
I would announce you that until the 15th of May Wikimedia Italia is collecting some nominations to select the winners of the Wikimedia Italia Award 2009 which will take place the 23th May in Vicenza (near Venice) in collaboration with local administrations and associations during the "festival of digital freedom" (http://www.libertadigitali.org/). The award is divided in different categories and some categories are strictly related with Italy and with Italian language for example: * Best project of content's liberation in Italy under free license in the 2009 * Best promotional material in Italian language in the 2009 concerning Wikimedia's projects * Best article or study concerning the open content in the 2009 written in Italian language * Best Italian Wikipedia article written from 15th April and 15th May 2009 * Best image or media published from 15th April and 15th May 2009 in Commons about the "Palladian Architecture" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Palladian_architecture) * Best contribution in other projects (Wikibook, Wikinews, Wikisource, etc.) in Italian language in the 2009 * Best contribution in any other version of Wikipedia written in other language spoken in Italy different from Italian (i.e. Arpitan, Sicilian, Slovenščina, etc.) This award will have an important diffusion in the media and in the local government. What could be of your interest? Also if the categories are connected with Italy and Italian language, there is an award connected with Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Italia_Award_2009) which could be of your interest. The subject is "Palladio and the palladian architecture" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Palladian_architecture). In Commons there is a page where any contributor can put the nominations for the best media (photo or multimedia) concerning the architecture influenced by Palladio. We know that this architect has had a wide influence in some architecture in England, Ireland and USA... please go to take a photo of your local ancient building influenced by Palladio and upload it in Commons and put the announcement of your contribution in the related page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_Italia_Award_2009#Nominations). You have time until the 15th May. Please contribute. I am sending this email also to the chapters to ask your help to widespread this initiative in your local communities. Ilario Wikimedia Italia Wikimedia Ch ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Biographies of Living People: a quick interim update
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > Hi folks, > > This is just a quick interim update on the BLP issue I raised here last week. > > > First, there seems to be a general view that BLPs are a problem that > is worth addressing. I won't recap all the reasons for that, because > it seems there is ---happpily--- already consensus. > With consensus or not the problem is urgent most of all because people with *poor* biography consider the cancellation an insult and would proceed in a legal point of view (I don't understand with which type of motion) (in Italian Wikipedia it's already a daily problem). Surely these people will not stop their activity after the acceptance of their biography and they are a potential source of legal problems connected with defamation or calumny. With consensus or not I hope that WMF, as legal responsible of servers, would proceed at least to awaken the communities to accept more strict rules for biography of living people. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moving towards a more usable MediaWiki
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hoi, > You do not create a new article by finding the "edit" button. The task all > these people failed at was creating a whole new article. > Thanks, > GerardM > Ok, it's a real problem... but we know that any wiki has got a syntax. It's better to know the curve of learning of these users. For example: * they were not able to write an article at start * after a quick training the 50% was able * with a small handbook the 40% was able IMHO it's better to learn a syntax instead of HTML. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moving towards a more usable MediaWiki
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hoi, > Over the last weeks I have been rather active in promoting improved > usability for the MediaWiki software. What really got me going was learning > from a Wikimania presentation that a UNICEF usability study done in Tanzania > showed that 100% of the test subjects were unable to create a new article. > UNICEF has created extensions to improve on this, extensions that make a > difference. The fact that our usability is poor does not only hurt what some > call "minority languages". A professor in Austria I know, a veteran user of > software, was also hard pressed to collaborate on a wiki. > The problem for usability is that sometime there is not a better selection of users to have a "real" sampling. Naturally if this sampling is formed by users with a poor or no knowledge of computers, probably they will not have problems with Wikipedia because they would not able to switch on a computer. The usability, in this case is the minor problem. Probably is better to know if they were not able to use the edit button because the edit button is not "usable" or if they were not able because they don't have seen an "edit" button in the past. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
