On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote:
Within Wikimedia CH, this is an idea that we have discussed a few years
ago: how can we support software and other communities that our
community depends on, while avoiding to just give away money. In the
end, we
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Erik, there are cases in which this is clearly the right thing
for us to do.
1) An annual 'supporting the ecosystem' program, that channels grants
and visibility to important partners, seems interesting. Could this
I would love to see the Foundation support archive.org and
webcitation.org. I have seen dozens of community members express hopes
for Foundation monetary support of both continued survival and faster
response time for both. But I am not aware of any acknowledgement from
the Foundation other than
Thanks Cornelius (and everyone else for this and all you did at the
conference.
Great to share the learning so quickly. I have posted it on to our wiki.
Jon
On 15 April 2014 18:12, Cornelius Kibelka jckibe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Wikimedians,
on behalf of the Documentation Team of the
On 15.04.2014 19:12, Cornelius Kibelka wrote:
on behalf of the Documentation Team of the Wikimedia Conference 2014 I'm
happy to announce that we published all the minutes and photos of all
sessions, as far as they were available and ready. Check them out on https
I find myself in furious agreement with Charles here. For years the
Foundation has been insisting (and quite rightly so) that allied
organisations consider only the stark benefit-per-dollar that they can
extract for each piece of movement funding, as measured by KPIs and
metrics. Handing out
On 16 April 2014 13:03, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
Grants directed to the development specific functionality that Wikimedia
can use and which can later be included in other project's core offerings?
Sure, I don't think anyone has a problem with that. But I think that
I don't think the message of having a bit of discipline in your budget and
making value-for-money a prime consideration is at all a bad thing for
chapters to be doing. The way that the message was hammered in was at
times arrogant, aggressive, or plain out insulting, but the message itself
was a
Hi,
I would like to point out a couple of points:
* WMF or other affiliates can (and should, IMHO) look out for
sponsorships towards other organisations worth supporting when there
is the occasion, this is IMHO a legitimate activity (and investment)
as any other, i.e. the sponsor gains the
Many of the chapters are still in startup mode - a challenge that the WMF
should avoid when targeting organizations for sponsorship or donation.
Perhaps more saliently, OSM, MariaDB, Internet Archive etc. are not
representing the Wikimedia movement, aren't using Wikimedia trademarks,
and
Article on the matter in The Daily Dot, April 14:
http://www.dailydot.com/business/wikipedia-paid-editing-scandal-stanton/
Apparently, Tim Sandole complains of not having been managed properly by
anybody, saying, The person I dealt with at Wikimedia didn't seem to know
anything about Wikipedia.
On 16 April 2014 15:19, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Apparently, Tim Sandole complains of not having been managed properly by
anybody, saying, The person I dealt with at Wikimedia didn't seem to know
anything about Wikipedia.
I believe it was clear from Sue's frank report and
On 26 Mar 2014, at 21:35, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
snip
It would be great if this sort of rating was being systematically checked -
but at a vague estimate of thirty seconds to scan, grade, and tag,
aggregated across all pages on enwiki, that's about fifteen or twenty
Le 16/04/2014 14:13, Craig Franklin a écrit :
I don't think the message of having a bit of discipline in your budget and
making value-for-money a prime consideration is at all a bad thing for
chapters to be doing. The way that the message was hammered in was at
times arrogant, aggressive, or
Inline.
Thanks for starting this thread.
Sorry if I've overlooked this, but who/what will have access to this data?
Only members of the mobile team? Local project CheckUsers? Wikimedia
Foundation-approved researchers? Wikimedia shell users? AbuseFilter
filters?
It's a good question. The
Hi Adam,
One thought: you don't really need the date/time data at any detailed
resolution, do you? If what you're wanting it for is to track major
changes (last month it all switched to this IP) and to purge old
data (delete anything older than 10 March), you could simply log day
rather than
On 04/15/2014 05:12 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Yeah, one of the first things to do is to talk to these partner
organisations (because they are partner organisations) and ask what
would actually be helpful, rather than helpy
One thing that Erik has not mentionned (probably because it simply
Hi all,
I just wanted to find out what the stance of the WMF is on the issue
of WMF employees and contractors editing articles on themselves, or
fellow employees, in direct contravention of COI guidelines? Is this a
practice that is officially frowned upon?
Whilst researching the Belfer fiasco I
Great idea!
Anyone on the list know if there's a way to make the debug log facilities
do the MMDD timestamp instead of the longer one?
If not, I suppose we could work to update the core MediaWiki code. [1]
-Adam
1. For those with PHP skills or equivalent, I'm referring to
It would be fantastic if the Foundation were to take *positive action*
and make it clear that its employees are immediately directed to not
edit Wikipedia articles about each other, ex-colleagues, the
Foundation, the Foundation's partners, suppliers and contractors or
the Foundation's critics.
At least about non-profit software organizations that we rely on (aka
upstream projects), I agree with the idea of having a strategy of support
and the sensible resources to support it.
The easy part is to explain the principle and the strategy to our editors
and donors. We got here because these
Hi,
I can't speak on behalf of the rest of WMF staff, but since I made three
edits to the 'Zack Exley' article, I feel that I owe a public explanation
of the three edits that I made.
Here are the edits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exleydiff=506286326oldid=504412402
In my
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:48 AM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
I would love to see the Foundation support archive.org and
webcitation.org. I have seen dozens of community members express hopes
for Foundation monetary support of both continued survival and faster
response time for
On 16 April 2014 14:03, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Could the WMF and the BoT perhaps clarify whether COI editing amongst
WMF staff/contractors is officially discouraged/forbidden, and whether
there is something official in writing which lays out guidelines for
how and when
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On the software side, we have Ubuntu Linux (itself highly indebted to
Debian) / Apache / MariaDB / PHP / Varnish / ElasticSearch / memcached
/ Puppet / OpenStack / various libraries and many other dependencies [2],
25 matches
Mail list logo
