Luiz Augusto wrote:
This is what we need: to stop the current attempt and start it again
Why?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Porantim wrote:
The point here is: Thomas is one of the people who deny the debate. This is
the fact.
Of course I want Thomas close to us, fighting with us, but I cant't believe
in dictatorship.
If you really want to help us, you can speak with your friend Thomas about
those problemas.
Porantim wrote:
Jimmy, again, the problem isn't personal. Please, dont't try to take this
way.
No, I don't think the problem is personal. I think it's a
misunderstanding, and you requested that I talk to Thomas about it. I will.
--Jimbo
___
Porantim wrote:
The problem don't is people with no edits participate of the chapter, the
problem is deny editors to participate.
Porantim, I hear what you are saying and I agree with you. There should
never be a chapter which denies that participation of editors. I'll go
even further:
I would recommend that Russian Wikipedia adopt a policy similar to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USERBOXES#Content_restrictions
# Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.
# Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or
recruitment of any kind, commercial,
James Rigg wrote:
Thanks geni.
So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
No, not at all.
___
James Rigg wrote:
I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
Contract negotiations.
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
(I heard that people were happy at Wikimania (Florence?)
because of that proposal but I fail to understand why the Egyptian people
there didn't express their opinion about it (it was in Egypt :!).
I was sitting next to an Egyptian VIP in the front row when the
Austin Hair wrote:
Every chapter has unique
considerations specific to its social and political circumstances—be
it Taiwan, Serbia, Hong Kong, or New York City—but, as far as we're
concerned, there's no such thing as a second-class chapter.
Speaking only for myself as one board member among
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
So in essence by having a New York chapter, it became impossible to have an
USA chapter? Or do we need to propose an Amsterdam sub chapter that will get
all the trimmings like New York? The argument that the USA is so big is not
that strong either, we could have a
Florence Devouard wrote:
Are sub-chapters going to have one representant as well ?
There are no sub-chapters. The proper term is sub-national chapters.
And they are chapters as much as any other chapter.
--Jimbo
___
foundation-l mailing list
Anthony wrote:
Sounds good, but how good is OTRS at handling these issues? Are there any
statistics available as to what percentage of OTRS complainers are satisfied
with the resolution? Does OTRS provide any escalation for people who aren't
satisfied with their initial results?
In general,
Couldn't the stats job you want run on toolserver?
Peter Gervai wrote:
Hello,
I wasn't subscribed to this list, since I usually try to avoid the
politics around.
I was notified, however, that some interesting claims were made and
some steps taken (again) without any discussion
Brian, along with your long list of negatively-phrased questions, I'd be
interested to see your positive, assume-good-faith list of suggestions.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Robert Rohde wrote:
When one downloads a dump file, what percentage of the pages are
actually in a vandalized state?
This is equivalent to asking, if one chooses a random page from
Wikipedia right now, what is the probability of receiving a vandalized
revision?
Is there a possibility of
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
If you were using is gay as a measure of vandalism
over time you might conclude that vandalism is decreasing when in
reality cluebot is performing the same kind of analysis for its
automatic vandalism suppression and the vandals have responded by
vandalizing in forms
Thank you James.
Some bizarre claims are simply not worthy of serious response. For the
record, the community is far from irrelevant: the community is the most
important thing, full stop.
James Forrester wrote:
2009/8/25 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Thomas
I also forwarded this to the English Wikipedia mailing list...
Brion Vibber wrote:
It seems to work just fine, actually. The extension is on, the
configuration is being loaded for the right database, and things seem to
function when I test them.
Quick steps to try it out:
1) Find a
Brion Vibber wrote:
On 9/28/09 5:15 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I also forwarded this to the English Wikipedia mailing list...
Yay! :)
Also added on the tech blog:
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/flaggedrevs-test-wiki-awaits-you/
Actually it bounced, on account of I am
I agree with Lodewijk completely. One of the best reasons for this is
simple human dignity. People come and go from jobs all the time, it is
neither a scandal, nor a shame. Public speculation about such stuff is
offensive and embarassing.
Yes, to community-facing positions. Yes, to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor_advised_fund
Tides Foundation offers donor advised funds and other grantmaking
vehicles as well as professional philanthropic advice, institutional
regranting services, comprehensive grants management and much more.
On 5/8/10 12:12 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
and has made a statement that he refuses to discuss his deletions until
after he has finished deleting them all, which would only compound the
problem.
To the contrary, I have been very active in discussions both on the
wiki, in email, and in irc.
, and that any such opinions to the contrary
would not be heard until after all deletions had taken place, and reaffirmed
that he refused point blank to even consider other positions but that
extreme one.
Adam, that is not an honest representation of my position.
--
Jimmy Wales
Please follow
to have made sure that storyline broke the way
it did, and I'm sorry I had to step on some toes to make it happen.
Now, the key is: let's continue to move forward with a responsible
policy discussion.
--
Jimmy Wales
Please follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales
On 5/8/10 5:11 PM, Mike.lifeguard wrote:
If we believe, as Sue does, that this protection against outside
influence is a good thing, then Jimbo is a weak link so long as he can
enact the changes some outsider wants of his own accord.
Oh, but I can't really. In this case, I was in - and remain
which ended up averting the crisis. In the process I
stepped on some toes, and for that I am sorry.
I won't do it again.
The most important questions now have to do with policy on commons.
--
Jimmy Wales
Please follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales
On 5/8/10 5:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBridez...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and Jimmy
was
the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most of the
poor deletions have been
On 5/8/10 3:29 PM, Amory Meltzer wrote:
I recognize that the issue is more about the point and process of the
whole thing, and that it's not just Wales who deleted images, but I
think some perspective is useful.
Jimbo deleted 71 images.
That doesn't call for outright rage.
And I deleted
On 5/8/10 5:06 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography
and doing nothing about it. Now, the correct storyline is that we are
cleaning up. I'm proud to have made sure that storyline broke the way
it did, and I'm sorry I
On 5/9/10 4:18 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I notice you have kept protect and undelete. Is that intentional?
If so, can you explain your thinking behind that decision?
I just removed undelete, manage global groups, and edit membership to
global groups. I did that before I saw your note, so I
it potentially destroyed by
an emperor gone mad.
Yeah, that's pretty melodramatic my friend. :-)
--Jimbo
--
Jimmy Wales
Please follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
on en.wikipedia.org - since that's my home
project.)
--
Jimmy Wales
Please follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
much-needed changes at Commons, including the continued deletion of some
of the things that we used to host.
--
Jimmy Wales
Please follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been
working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more of
the recommendations on improving the
On 9/29/10 12:51 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
IMO the English Wikipedia community should be allowed to continue to
review the results of their trial, and/or discuss how the next trial
will occur.
I agree with you completely, but also want to point out that this is
exactly where we are right
On 9/29/10 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
2010/9/28 John Vandenbergjay...@gmail.com:
This doesn't answer my question, which was:
_When_ will the board _review_ [the task-forces output]?
I'm sorry I didn't answer your question, John. Please note that I'm
neither on the Board, nor am I part of
On 1/21/11 5:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
No-one is in fact obliged to respond to you on foundation-l, indeed
many WMF employees and WMF and chapter volunteers don't read it,
referring instead to it as troll-l. It would be nice if this weren't
the case.
I know a good way to help achieve that.
On 3/5/11 7:48 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
While most donations come from people outside the Wikimedia (editing)
community, the people within the community often feel that the very small
staff of the past was more productive, more agile, less bloated, and overall
more efficient than the larger staff
Award, which is dedicated
to all of those whose courage tears down walls and whose commitment
builds bridges[1]. This is the same award Wikipedia received in 2008
(Wikipedia being represented by Jimmy Wales). The award has been
forwarded to Wikimedia Germany by Jimmy. The price money (25k
On 8/9/11 1:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
(I don't think that is the intent - apparently WMF feels like it can
mess people around and still get 100% from them. I do consider that
the problems really haven't been considered.)
I don't think the WMF thinks that they can mess people around at all,
On 8/9/11 3:47 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
It seems to me that these changes are about making chapters more into
franchises. Which I find to be exactly backwards.
It would be, if that's what it were about. But I can say with
confidence that at the board meeting, no one spoke about any ideas even
Redefining the chapters
who participated in a joint fundraiser with WMF as WMF's payment
processors is straight-up insulting.
Whoa, please slow down!
No one has said anything like that, and it isn't how the term is being
used. A chapter is a payment processor if it... processes payments.
On 8/9/11 10:27 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
A more typical arrangement would be that the WMF would give a chapter the
right to use WMF trademarks, and in return a portion of the funds raised by
the chapter would be funneled back to the WMF. But what chapters seem to
want is for the WMF to sign
On 8/9/11 10:27 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
A more typical arrangement would be that the WMF would give a chapter the
right to use WMF trademarks, and in return a portion of the funds raised by
the chapter would be funneled back to the WMF. But what chapters seem to
want is for the WMF to sign
You are right! TYPO!
On 8/10/11 6:14 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Jimmy Walesjwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
It would be, if that's what it were about. But I can say with
confidence that at the board meeting, no one spoke about any ideas even
remotely similar to
On 8/10/11 7:22 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
As for the rest I encourage you to exercise your
moral duty by helping the chapters fulfill the reporting
requirements, implement the financial controls, and operate
transparently. You have been through this all before. You were the
chairman
On 8/10/11 8:51 PM, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't think chapters are being cut off I think they are being
centralized. Centralization, not lack of funding, is what I believe
will make chapters ineffective.
Chapters are not being centralized. I don't know how I can be more clear.
The
On 8/10/11 8:56 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but where has it been suggested that chapters
would not remain free to raise funds independently of the WMF? My
impression was that the change being discussed here would merely remove
participation in the WMF fundraiser
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
I was mentioned in a leaked US diplomatic cable - with my name spelled
wrong!
http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/11/08SANTIAGO1015.html
Hilarious.
--Jimbo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
http://www.linkiesta.it/wikipedia-law
It'd be nice to have Italian Wikipedia back up as people are waking up
in Italy.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 3/31/12 8:07 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 31 March 2012 06:45, John Vandenbergjay...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no requirement to know everything. There is a requirement to
make decisions in the best interests of the organisation, *as you see
it*. If a trustee persistently abstains on the
52 matches
Mail list logo
