Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

2016-03-01 21:32 GMT-08:00 Andreas Kolbe : > The gift from the Brin Wojcicki Foundation is of a little bit of interest, > because its public announcement[3][5] came a mere three days after the > Wikimedia Foundation said[9] I see we're moving the goalposts back to an earlier

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > > Anne, I have mentioned several times in the past few days here on this > list > > Sue Gardner's 2008 email suggesting that the WMF enter into an "umbrella > > relationship/agreement" or "business deal" with Google. In

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:24 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> You can tell me the scope was intended to be only for Wikimedia projects, >> but that isn't what is said in that grant application. That document as it >> stands literally states that it is to be an Internet search

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:55 AM, Kevin Gorman wrote: > > Chris: I parse the reference to paragraph (i) in (a.1) as meaning that a > director removed without cause may in fact stand for the next election > cycle. As far as I can tell, James was removed without cause. Every >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Ukraine’s Board

Nataliia, Thank you for this beautiful introduction to the new and current board members, and tribute to those who have done their service (and for their Wikizghushchivka!). It's so nice to know a bit more about the people behind the usernames! I look forward to working with the returning and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Additionally, I believe Coren was referring to the expanded TOU as a whole, not to that amendment alone. And I agree with him, for the record. Lila's support in expanding the size of the CA team was useful in helping to combat the abuses mentioned, but the vast majority of the systemic work took

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Dave, you're simply mistaken. The paid editing amendment was passed by the Board in April 2014 (before Lila was hired); it was merely *announced* in June. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:59 AM, David Emrany wrote: > Dear Coren > > I think you are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] My posts going to spam

On 29/02/2016 22:10, George Herbert wrote: Just to confirm, all Jimmy's email in these threads were in my Gmail spam folder when I looked. If you're using Gmail, go look at the spam folder and bring his messages back in... Perhaps that is the penalty for attempting to compete with search

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] Inspire Campaign on content curation & review launches today!

Thank you. Great work. /a On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Aaron Halfaker wrote: > I just finished submitting two ideas that I'd like to advise. > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Automated_good-faith_newcomer_detection > Build and deploy a machine

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel < it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:06 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: > > > Itzik, what were the equivalent budgets for Haifa? From the post-mortem > on > > Meta it looks like a $280K budget, and a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] My posts going to spam

Le 01/03/16 05:11, Austin Hair a écrit : On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Michael Snow wrote: On 2/29/2016 5:37 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: I'm switching to this email address for posting, because apparently there is some kind of weird problem between yahoo and google such

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meeting in Berlin (was: Executive transition planning)

This is an excellent approach, thank you. SJ On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Tim Moritz Hector < tim-moritz.hec...@wikimedia.de> wrote: > Dear fellow Wikimedians, > > I have been closely following the developments of the previous weeks. A lot > of things have been said, concerns and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

Popping back earlier in the thread a bit: The statement "The Board has decided unanimously to back Lila's continued tenure," was false. The statement "The Board has decided to back Lila's continued tenure," was true. The exact nature of any dissent doesn't need to be publicized, and really the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

Craig, I believe it is all free (not purchased), per https://www.google.com/intl/en/nonprofits/products/#apps#tab5 ("Google Apps for Nonprofits") On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Craig Franklin wrote: > My understanding is that the Foundation purchases certain

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

Chris: I parse the reference to paragraph (i) in (a.1) as meaning that a director removed without cause may in fact stand for the next election cycle. As far as I can tell, James was removed without cause. Every reason put forth by the BoT for his removal has been torn apart, some by WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > I'm just going to quote directly from the Grant application here [1]: > > > Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia will democratize the discovery of media, > news and information—it will make the Internet's most relevant

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meeting in Berlin (was: Executive transition planning)

Hi Dariusz Thanks for that. As you know, WMUK has over the last three years itself gone through a lengthy process of governance review, reflection, and change and I would be happy to join with Tim in offering my support and the benefit of our own experiences, if that would be useful. It will

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Meeting in Berlin (was: Executive transition planning)

Hi, Since the whole Board is in heavy overload right now, I'm writing basically to acknowledge this proposal and thank for it. Since I've been discussing the WMDE governance with its Board in the past, I think there are definitely useful learning points, and it is great that you take this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] English Wikipedia India / Project WIN planning

Earlier I told you about this discussion. Now we'll move ahead. You may revisit the thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Planning_a_few_initiatives These are the tasks for now: 1. Barnstar, noticeboard barnstar, regular recognition to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Dear Coren I think you are mistaken. The paid editing amendment was added in 2014 (16th June) during Lila's term.[1] Lila took over the reins from Sue on 1 June 2014. I'm appalled that you credit Sue for the steps taken (under Lila) to widen the volunteer base by exposing many rotten apples,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Den 2016-03-01 kl. 11:01, skrev David Emrany: The credibility of Wikipedia as a brand is going down the tubes rapidly as fresh scandals emerge with alarming frequency. More enemies of the movement are being created daily. We all live in different realities, so please be careful to indicate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

On 2016-03-01 11:01, David Emrany wrote: " .. WIKIMEDIA pornographers who are masquerading as champions of free speech and free internet to promote their obscenities and lies in India ... TO IMMEDIATELY PROHIBIT ANY FREE INTERNET ACCESS OVER MOBILE DEVICES .. " [2] [1]

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

David, When I refer to the community I assume already that it has an intrinsic imperfect representation and unclear boundaries, as it is characteristic to open systems. Given these blurry boundaries, at what point of the society does the asylum begin or end? It is not enough with just "cleaning

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

On 16-03-01 03:57 AM, David Emrany wrote: > What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term > some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR > socking and on-wiki abuses could come out. I was tangentially part of the investigation that led to many of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

Dear Jimmy, Thank you for the clarification. I very much appreciate signals that lead to a better understanding and coming to terms with each other. I am happy to read that you wouldn't, as a person, object to a return of James to the board. However, the FAQ says in the introduction: "The Board

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Dear David I respectfully disagree. My point is that the "community" you refer to is not a representative community at all. for eg. voices from Asia and Africa are not properly represented here. The community is incapable of policing itself because (to quote a prominent WP criticism site) "the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Hi David, you say that "A large number of these persons are paid editors / PR -SEO "consultants" who have worked themselves up to positions of administrators". Although there is no clear evidence, there is a lot of mistrust and suspicion about "paid editing". Since people need to make a living,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

I was subliminally aware of your assist in Nemo's protest to Lila. What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR socking and on-wiki abuses could come out. 1) WIKI-PR (250 sock accounts) 2) Orange

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 23:19 GMT-08:00 David Emrany : > so reading your email, we also recall these quotes from the time of the > Stanton Foundation fiasco ? [1] > > "The Executive Director and Chief Revenue Officer agree that in the > future, any grants that are not unrestricted will

[Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

On Monday, February 29, 2016, Erik Moeller > wrote: > > The > Apple dictionary integration Brion mentions in [4] is an exception to > the rule; contrary to Brion's recollection it actually predates even > Sue Gardner and, as