Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement: Building a new Legal and Community Advocacy Department Promotion of Philippe Beaudette
On 9 February 2012 23:49, Geoff Brigham gbrig...@wikimedia.org wrote: Today, we are excited to announce the start of our building of a new department called the “Legal and Community Advocacy Department.” This new alignment recognizes that we can combine the best of legal and community advocacy to foster new ways to advance the interests of the community consistent with the goals and strategies of the Foundation. For details, please go to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/LCA_Announcement. As part of this reorganization, I’m pleased to announce that Philippe Beaudette has been promoted to Director of Community Advocacy. We will start engaging our community shortly and enter into a consultation period with it to brainstorm how to build the department. We anticipate that it will take us about 6-12 months to get the right team and drive the new department at full speed. The community is invited to join us on Friday for office hours to discuss the new Legal and Community Advocacy Department. Details for the IRC chat can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours. Fantastic news. Congratulations, Philippe! Yours, -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Maggie Dennis to continue with WMF
On 20 January 2012 19:55, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all, I'm thrilled to announce that Maggie Dennis, our community liaison, has agreed to transition to a permanent role with the Wikimedia Foundation. Fab news. Congratulations, Maggie (or, rather, congratulations, WMF!). J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimania 2013 - Announcement of Jury and invitation to bid
Dear all, As promised, for Wikimania 2013[0] I hereby announce the Jury[1] to select the winning bid, and invite everyone to consider putting a bid[2] together: == Jury == * [[User:80686|Manuel Schneider]] * [[User:Beria|Béria Lima]] * [[User:Deror avi|Deror Avi]] * [[User:Effeietsanders|Lodewijk Gelauff]] * [[User:Ilario|Ilario Salvatore Valdelli]] * [[User:Kiril Simeonovski|Kiril Simeonovski]] * [[User:Peteforsyth|Pete Forsyth]] * [[User:Philippe|Philippe Beaudette]] * [[User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Anirudh Bhati]] * [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] * [[User:Thogo|Thomas Goldammer]] There are a further two individuals who I have asked to confirm that they are happy to serve on the Jury, and who I will add on-wiki if and when they confirm. As in previous Juries, any Wikimania Foundation Board members may act as (non-voting) advisors to the Jury if they so choose. I know that Bishakha Datta and Phoebe Ayers have agreed to take on this role, and other Board members may join if they wish. I will serve as a moderator (a neutral non-voting aide to the Jury), along with another individual who will hopefully confirm that this is OK with them later today. Thank you for everyone who contacted me to nominate themselves, others, or give suggestions; the suggestions were very helpful, and I hope the resulting Jury will be a success. == Invitation to bid == To re-iterate my comment in November, I'm sure the whole Wikimedia community would love to see as many good bids as possible. There are already a few bids[2] on Meta, but if you or your local community are thinking about putting one in, you need to get it started and in a reasonable state by the end of 28 January 2012 at the very latest[3]. Please also consider passing this message on (and translating it!) for your wiki's community forum for those that don't read these mailing lists. Thank you, and good luck to all Bids. [0] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013 [1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013_jury [2] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013_bids [3] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013_bids/Timeline Yours, -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2013 - Announcement of Jury and invitation to bid
On 12 January 2012 20:03, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 January 2012 19:52, James Forrester jdforres...@gmail.com wrote: To re-iterate my comment in November, I'm sure the whole Wikimedia community would love to see as many good bids as possible. There are already a few bids[2] on Meta, but if you or your local community are thinking about putting one in, you need to get it started and in a reasonable state by the end of 28 January 2012 at the very latest[3]. Thank you for taking the initiative and getting things moving with this. What do you mean by in a reasonable state in the above? The page on meta only says you need to have created a page added your city to the list by then and doesn't suggest that the page needs to have any significant content by then. It's general practice for Juries to make a very quick judgement about a bid to see if it's one that has a serious prospect (sometimes they are placed in jest). It's not previously been a high bar in any way. However, that is of course for the Jury to decide and they may not follow this practice. Yours, -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikimania 2013 - Request for Bids and Jury nominations
Dear all, It's getting towards the end of November, which means it is time to run the Wikimania bidding process for 2013[0]. Given the traditional absence of a formal system, I'm putting myself forward as Jury[1] co-ordinator - a non-voting person who helps the Jury form and Bids get started up, sets the timeline[2], and hopefully makes sure everything happens smoothly. In this role, I would like to make two requests: Firstly, I'm sure the whole Wikimedia community would love to see as many good bids as possible. There are already a few bids[3] on Meta, but if you or your local community are thinking about putting one in, I'd urge you to get started now - there's not much time left before new bids will not be accepted. Making a good bid for Wikimania can be a lot of work, but we all benefit from there being a strong field of bids. Secondly, I would like to invite volunteers to serve on the Wikimania 2013 jury. There is a list of general requirements on Meta[4], but to summarise: * The Jury will have some from the Wikimedia Foundation's Board and staff alongside the community volunteers; * You can't be on the Jury if you're closely involved in a Bid (it's a conflict of interest); * You need to have some free time during the selection period (January-March); * We want to represent the community across the different projects and activities; and * We of course want a mix of people from a diverse range of backgrounds, sexes, cultures and regions of the world. If you wish to be involved in the Jury, please e-mail me (off-list) at jdforres...@gmail.com - I hope we can announce the Jury in the first week of December, so please contact me as soon as you can. Please also consider passing this message on (and translating it!) for your wiki's community forum for those that don't read these mailing lists. Thank you, and good luck to all Bids. [0] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013 [1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013/Jury [2] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013/Bids/Timeline [3] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2013/Bids [4] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_jury Yours, -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2013 - Request for Bids and Jury nominations
On 23 November 2011 19:07, Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org wrote: In the past years I have seen a lot of people spend a lot of time on different bids which never made it (even though they were pretty good). Could this be the year that we change this procedure and try to do things differently? I would love to explore how we can avoid a lot of people wasting their energy... How about taking a little time to look at these and other imperfects of the current system before jumping right in, and trying to see if we can improve it? Happy to pause things, but there's limited time (even if we just awarded it today, 19 months isn't a huge amount of time to organise an event which is quite a significant amount of work). Previously there have been calls for the Board to establish a Committee of some sort to oversee Wikimanias and try to come to some agreement about how to improve the system - but I worry that if we start discussions about how we're going to decide to decide we'll never get anywhere. :-) J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2013 - Request for Bids and Jury nominations
On 23 November 2011 19:31, Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 23 nov. 2011, at 20:17, James Forrester wrote: On 23 November 2011 19:07, Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org wrote: In the past years I have seen a lot of people spend a lot of time on different bids which never made it (even though they were pretty good). Could this be the year that we change this procedure and try to do things differently? I would love to explore how we can avoid a lot of people wasting their energy... How about taking a little time to look at these and other imperfects of the current system before jumping right in, and trying to see if we can improve it? Happy to pause things, but there's limited time (even if we just awarded it today, 19 months isn't a huge amount of time to organise an event which is quite a significant amount of work). Previously there have been calls for the Board to establish a Committee of some sort to oversee Wikimanias and try to come to some agreement about how to improve the system - but I worry that if we start discussions about how we're going to decide to decide we'll never get anywhere. :-) true, And if I am the only one having these concerns then no worries, but taking a couple of days to share concerns might be a good idea :) Sure. I'm totally not going to try to rail-road this discussion (or maybe it should be on-wiki?) by announcing a Jury when we're not sure how we'll proceed. :-) J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing Fabrice Florin and Oliver Keyes
On 24 October 2011 08:40, Howie Fung hf...@wikimedia.org wrote: Everyone, I am pleased to announce that we have two contractors joining the Technology team. Fabrice Florin will be joining us for the next six months as Product Consultant, leading the development of the next version of the Article Feedback Tool. Oliver Keyes (User: Ironholds on enwp) will be joining us as a community liaison for the next three months. His role is to help ensure that the community input is better incorporated into WMF’s product development process. Congratulations, both. James. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation
On 14 July 2011 23:33, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I can envision something like an Open Knowledge Project or some other umbrella initiative, aimed at forging links between like-minded organizations who wish to associate without losing independence or explicitly taking responsibility for the work of others. It could be set up pretty simply: * Establish the fundamentals of a broader identity with a statement of shared values and a general intent to cooperate in the world * Host a portal to communicate broadly common goals and and provide information to both prospective colleagues and the general public * Arrange formal and informal opportunities to create collaborative ties between people and organizations and to develop a sense of shared purpose If you could get to that point growth would be pretty organic; participants would suggest mutually agreeable and beneficial goals and initiatives to be undertaken as a group, such undertakings would drive closer cooperation and legitimate the concept of a free content / open knowledge movement, and so on. Organizations like PLoS, FSF, Creative Commons, the EFF, Wikimedia and others have naturally overlapping interests and philosophies. It would only make sense for those organizations, and the many smaller ones who share their broad values, to cooperate as a group in a more formal way than I believe they do currently. I think this is a good idea (and better than trying to get all Free Content/Open Knowledge/etc. people to badge themselves as somehow part of our Wikimedia Movement, which though (hopefully!) welcoming and inclusive is not as wide as the whole topic. I'd note that there is of course the excellent Open Knowledge Definition[0], penned in part by our very own Erik Möller, which gave rise to the Open Knowledge Foundation[1]. Perhaps working with them on this might be a good move? [0] - opendefinition.org [1] - okfn.org J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011 19:22, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 June 2011 13:11, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of users who have created serious problems on either the global or the multiple-project level. Is there something the Foundation could do to support that happening? I tend to agree with Kirill Lokshin about the ability of the WMF as a service provider to restrict access to its property in a general sense, for the very small number of individuals who have repeatedly abused their access across several projects, or more directly by affecting Wikimedians by taking wiki-disputes into other areas; my estimate would be that we're probably talking fewer than a dozen people altogether over the past 10 years who might meet this level of abuse. The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has variously (certainly in 2005-7 a couple of times) approached the Foundation about having WMF formally ban individuals from access to its online resources, modelled on the letters that shoplifters often get sent (at least in the UK), informing them that they are banned for life from the private property notwithstanding any public inducements to enter (or, in our world, use or interact with the services), and that failure to comply will result in action up to and including private prosecution for trespass. The bar would have to be seriously high for it to be worth our while (and just because the letter has been issued doesn't mean they magically go away), but in certain cases I think we should consider it. Yours, -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia at events
On 2 June 2011 03:25, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Samuel Klein wrote: I'd like to see this for more than just the Foundation - any event where wikimedians have a presence - but this is a great place to start. I started a (very bad) page at Meta-Wiki for future events: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_in_meatspace. If anyone else could give it some love, that would be appreciated. :-) No reason that you couldn't scrape and push into an iCal format (or whatever) from that. Worth doing? J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA
On 24 June 2010 15:37, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a book's pages and TOC. Wikisource is becoming AWESOME. Ahem. Even more awesome, you mean. :-) Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the processes are? Is there a way for us to actually merge workflows with them? Disclaimer - my PGDP account dates from 2004, but I only get involved in fits every couple of years. This should be seen mostly as an outsider's viewpoint. :-) IME, PGDP's processes are /seriously/ heavy-weight, burning lots of worker time on 2nd or even 3rd-level passes, and multiple tiers of work (Proofreading, Formatting, and all the special management levels for people running projects). The pyramid of processes has grown so great that they have seemed to crash in on themselves - there's a huge dearth of people at the higher levels (you need to qualify at the lower levels before the system will let you contribute to the activities at the end). It's generally quite unwiki. I think Wikisource's model is a great deal more light weight that PGDP's - and that we really don't want to push Wikisource down that route. :-) Unfortunately I think that this means linking the two up might prove challenging - and there's also a danger that people may jump ship, damaging PGDP still further and making them upset with us. J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Floating a notion: permanent Wikimania committee?
On 17 June 2010 23:48, susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote: (James Owen, not Forrester. I actually don't know if James Forrester is coming this year, although now that I think of it, maybe he is one of the train-travelling people?) I am, to both counts, and you can rely on me turning up to anything to do with Wikimania organisation. :-) J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2011 announcement
On 12 May 2010 20:18, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Sue Gardner wrote: And thanks to the jury and its moderators: Mariano, Austin, Mako, Teemu, Delphine, James, Joseph, Stu, Phoebe, James Cary. I know we all appreciate your hard work. (James definitely had some late nights, and I will be curious to see if he volunteers for the jury again next year ;-) He probably just needs reassurance that he won't be laboring under a cloud, even if he does some of his best work there. I defer to Ævar on that matter. :-) J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why can't we have $12.5 million for Wikispecies?
2009/8/26 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Tisza Gergőgti...@gmail.com wrote: EOL is an encyclopedia, Wikispecies is just a raw taxonomy, which is totally useless to the average reader. It is also useless to most readers interested in taxonomies, because it lacks the software features to extract that. It is in a similar position to Wiktionary: a project about relations between things that totally lacks the concept of relations on the software level. That is like publishing text in the form of JPG files. If you are one of the few people specifically interested in taxonomies, you will probably use something that allows you to query and extract the relational data. While the wiki software layer is very basic, we have many complex tools on our toolserver. Here is a small sample of the projects which run on the toolserver. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Toolserver/Projects If you can specify what queries you are most interested in, the technical group may be able to write a tool to do this. I think the point is that the fundamental design of MediaWiki - around a single block of unstructured information - is not useful for a semantic project like WSp; there are much better ways of doing it. Toolserver projects cannot add functionality to the core in a proper way. Extensions like Semantic MediaWiki try, but in the end we are trying to 'fix' it, I'm afraid. J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why can't we have $12.5 million for Wikispecies?
2009/8/26 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com: On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:41 AM, James Forresterja...@jdforrester.org wrote: I think the point is that the fundamental design of MediaWiki - around a single block of unstructured information - is not useful for a semantic project like WSp; there are much better ways of doing it. Toolserver projects cannot add functionality to the core in a proper way. Extensions like Semantic MediaWiki try, but in the end we are trying to 'fix' it, I'm afraid. Wikis are not unstructured. Wikis aren't in general; MediaWiki is. Writing into an unstructured wiki in a structured, regulated way is a lot of work, and punishes the humans for our failure to provide the right tools. The structure is not defined, but it is added as needed. Here is a tool that relies on the added structure of the Wikisource bibles. http://toolserver.org/~Magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=Genesisbooknumber=1range=1 And here is the code for that tool: https://fisheye.toolserver.org/browse/Magnus/biblebay.php?r=1 The more structure provided by the wiki, the better the tools can query it. Asking users to expend a huge level of effort to make their changes proper when a proper system would do it for them is not respectful and (as shown) not effective. It's impressive that people can edit in such a well-regulated way that we can programmatically extract semantic information, but it's not a stable, easy-to-use way of doing it. It's also fundamentally anti-wiki, as new users will often make mistakes that make things worse, not better; biting the newbies built into the very code. J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
2009/8/25 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: membership organizations. Wales was right when he said that the community is irrelevant. When did Jimmy say that? I rather suspect you are taking something he said out of context... Many years ago, but my source is confidential. I've heard that you frequently post claims that you fail to back up, but my source is confidential. Please. Oh, and someone told me to do this, but unfortunately I'm not allowed to say who instructed me so to do. James. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
2009/8/25 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:57 PM, James Forrester ja...@jdforrester.orgwrote: 2009/8/25 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org: On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: membership organizations. Wales was right when he said that the community is irrelevant. When did Jimmy say that? I rather suspect you are taking something he said out of context... Many years ago, but my source is confidential. I've heard that you frequently post claims that you fail to back up, but my source is confidential. Please. Oh, and someone told me to do this, but unfortunately I'm not allowed to say who instructed me so to do. Huh? As you already asked me about this off-list, and didn't like my response, I'm happy to give it here: Sure, but whether or not I believe you, my point is that it's not really helpful to make comments in a forum in which you can't - or won't - back them up. It doesn't add light, only heat, and doesn't achieve anything except damage the movement. James. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Email list archives
2009/8/15 Everton Zanella Alvarenga everton...@gmail.com: We've, recently, discussed about this on WikimediaBR-l and someone pointed out Google Groups archiving solution. http://groups.google.com/group/wikimediabr-l/topics For me the main usability of using Google Groups is for making reference for a previous post. Someone even asked if Wikimedia would mind about the archiving using a third party platform. Do you all think there is some problem? As an explanation note of this, you can create a Google Group for a mailing list hosted on another server (in this case, WMF's mailman installation), appear as just a normal mailing list member; Google Groups would then provide an easy way to search and understand users' posts. It gets treated like an announce list (so you can't post to it via Google Groups, just via the normal way of e-mail), but it's better than nothing, and very easy to set up. J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Positive mention of Wikimedia sites in a web privacy study:
2009/8/12 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com: Feature Request Aside : I would appreciate having a preference to turn on aggressive use tracking for myself -- to provide me with personal statistics about my own site usage. Currently there's nothing other than a watchlist (or hand-created/edited page) and some toolserver tools that track edits over time that offer any sort of history; no beadcrumbs or more advanced reading history is available. The UserStats extension[0] does some pretty graphs, but I'm not sure I've seen such a detailed and advanced tool. Would be interesting, if intrusive, to see my results. :-) [0] - http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Usage_Statistics J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
2009/8/9 Kat Walsh mindspill...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Brion Vibberbr...@wikimedia.org wrote: Now, if we really think of a _totally badass title_ before we get the business cards printed up I'm open to changing it, but honestly I like it and it fits the role I see for myself just fine. :) Or you could have two sets of business cards. :-) -Kat is not sure she can come up with anything badass enough for Brion, actually... Well, as long as it's not something lame like I'm the CEO... bitch, as the leader of a fellow Web 2.0 property (eurgh) apparently has/had, I'm quite sure Brion's call on his title would work fine. :-) J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
2009/8/7 Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org: On 8/7/09 3:06 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: It's not just about resumes, it's also about being taken seriously when communicating with others. A Head Software Architect will probably be taken more seriously than a Senior Software Architect, since the former shows you are the boss, that latter could be one of many. Having many folks at that level is be a condition dearly to be wished for! Well, in my experience it shows that the organisation's overall architecture is poorly thought-out, and with insufficient resource expenditure on correcting it (or, for that matter, stopping the rot getting even worse). But yes. :-) J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] About that sue and be damned to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...
2009/7/12 Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com: What an insult, Derrick only rates a solicitor As opposed to a barrister? You're mistaken; solicitors would be involved in such matters before going to court. Barristers would only be instructed by the solicitors when they were going to court (or, conceivably, to consider a point of law; hiring an expensive silk for a day can be a relatively cheap way of settling such points). J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Chapter Selected Board Seats
2009/5/22 Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org: [Snip] Please join me in welcoming Arne to the board and congratulating Michael on his re-appointment. On behalf of the board I would like to thank all those involved in facilitating the process and making these appointments possible. Absolutely, my congratulations both to Arne and to Michael. Yours, -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiktionary-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
2009/3/26 Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com: On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote: My own suggestion would be to use individual blocks but to have them be like type pieces from a printing press. Though actual proposals for new logos will be accepted later (once it is decided how things will work), you can leave a comment about how you feel here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo/refresh#Begin_from_Scratch :-) Well, I did a really quick-and-dirty view of what Michael's tiles-logo-but-actually-movable-type image might look like. It's completely awful - I can't draw, and my Inkscape skills are worse - but I offer it up anyway: :-) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WiktionaryFr-JDF_movable_type_idea_sketch.svg The off-green was me failing to be bothered enough to find a gunmetal grey transition shade pair, and of course it's the same rough image just rotated and resized as appropriate, but... :-) J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] History splitting (main namespace)
2009/2/13 Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se: When we renamed [[en:Angola/History]] to [[en:History of Angola]] (after it was decided that subpages was a bad idea), we copied the text, because back then there was no way to rename a page. In the revision history, it looks as if I (user:LA2) created this page on February 25, 2002, but I probably only contributed the initial line. The oldest versions from 2001 can be found in the revision history of [[Angola/History]], but this was never documented. [Slightly OT] Actually, with a delete-move-undelete merge, you can combine the histories of the articles. Yours, -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
