Re: [Wikimedia-l] Staff Images

[L. Tuxwell Anonanon]

Roary, please know that I was not distressed by any of the earlier
comments in this thread.  I see a vanguard of my relatives already
quietly oversee the Wikimedia offices.  We are a sociable clan,[1]
and accept your proffered paw of peace.  We find felines make fine 
company, with your flexible nature, thick skin and tendency toward

deep furry naps.  You seem to be quite warm; I hope to get to know
you more closely.[2]


 We are working on ways at managing consistency in house at the
 moment and appreciate your feedback and patience.
 More photos coming soon enough.
 Meal


All this talk of feed consistency makes me hungry too.  I find the
best-tasting feedback involves collaboration over a squid.[3]

Love and Wikiwiki,
Tux

[1] http://bit.ly/12EeYcR
[2] http://bit.ly/15HZHgi
[3]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gentoo_Penguin_feeding_its_chick_(6063656750).jpg


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Advocacy Advisors] Participating in a specific, transparency-focused action

[James Salsman]

Luis Villa wrote:
>...
> we'll continue to look out for opportunities that make sense
> ourselves, and of course the community should always feel
> able and empowered to start things as well

The Foundation uses Google Drive/Docs internally. And extensively so,
right? Why don't you publish a request that Google secure it such that
you are able to abide by your existing international privacy policy
obligations when using their systems, such as by developing a secure
end-to-end encrypting client for Drive, Docs, and Gmail, as they are
already rumored to be working on in
http://rt.com/usa/google-experimenting-nsa-encryption-report-230/

You could ask the same of Apple, Yahoo, Skype, Microsoft, etc. Is
there any reason this would not be prudent?

I hope your move went well.

Best regards,
James
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] FDC 2012-13 process review

[Jessie Wild]

Hello everyone!

Just wanted to draw your attention to an overview created of the FDC
process in review, 2012-13[1]
It reviews the process looking solely at the information from the two
process surveys which we conducted following the two rounds of FDC
funding.[2]

The page was created a few weeks back for the FDC Advisory Group,[3] but I
just realized I never shared more broadly. A Round 2-only summary of
feedback will be posted in August, as well.

Obviously, please feel free to share comments on the Wiki!
Jessie


[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Feedback_and_continuous_improvement_of_the_FDC_process/Process_Survey/2012-13_Year_Review
[2]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Feedback_and_continuous_improvement_of_the_FDC_process/Process_Survey
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group


-- 
*Jessie Wild
Learning & Evaluation *
*Wikimedia Foundation*
*
*
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
Donate to Wikimedia 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Internal-l] 2013-2014 Round 1 FDC eligibility status & IRC office hours

[Anasuya Sengupta]

Hi Nicole,

Happy to help! No, the $6M _doesn't_ include any potential FDC allocation
for WMF in Round 2.

Warmly,
Anasuya


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Nicole Ebber wrote:

> Hi Anasuya and Garfield,
>
> please allow me a quick question:
>
> * In 2012-13, the FDC grants (round 1 and 2) were $4.7 M plus the WMF
> FDC grant of $4.5 M = a total of $9.2 M.
> * In 2013-14, the FDC grants are budgeted with a total of $6 M.
>
> What is unclear to me is if this $6 M are including the FDC grant the
> WMF might apply for in round 2 or not. Can you clarify this for me?
>
> Thanks a lot and best regards,
> Nicole
>
> On 18 July 2013 10:34, Lodewijk  wrote:
> > Thanks Sam for the clarification. I'm sorry to hear this was not
> discussed
> > in the board apparently. I hope you will be able to share the outcome of
> > that discussion to remove any uncertainty that may have remained.
> >
> > I do agree that there was no major change in how the annual plan was
> > handled this year - but I tried to put things in a perspective. The WMF
> did
> > not try to 'compensate' the lack of FDC process this year by for example
> > publishing the draft annual plan or financial plan earlier in the process
> > for community review. I remain of the opinion (also towards chapters)
> that
> > sharing early drafts to what they consider their memberships is often a
> > good thing.
> >
> > While the FDC decision on the WMF request may not have been unanimous,
> > since the fiscal year was fully started, people had been hired and even
> > paid for, I don't think it would have been possible for them to make
> > serious cuts. By the suboptimal process that was followed, it was
> > definitely afterwards, and as the input for the process had already been
> > board approved and also the output decision was a board decision, besides
> > the fact that there is a whole discussion possible over core/non-core, I
> > would have been very very surprised if anything else than 100% approval
> > would have been the result. This is of course also why this process is
> > changed. My point here was primarily that with all its flaws, not even
> this
> > process was followed this year. Because imho it *was* indeed an
> improvement
> > over the years before.
> >
> > Anasuya: My apologies for being confusing. I was of course referring to
> the
> > approval of the WMF 2013/2014 non-core activities, not so much to the
> > 2013/2014 FDC process. I understand from your email that you're
> confirming
> > the clear explanation by Anders Wennersten. Thank you for that.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> >
> > 2013/7/18 Anasuya Sengupta 
> >
> >> Hi Lodewijk,
> >>
> >> Since you asked specifically about WMF not sending in a Letter of Intent
> >> (LoI) to the FDC process, WMF - like any other entity interested in
> >> applying for Round 2 - doesn't need to have sent it in by June 8th as
> did
> >> those interested in applying for Round 1. Essentially, entities that are
> >> interested in applying for Round 2 of any year have the option of either
> >> publishing an LoI by June 8th, clarifying they intend to apply for
> Round 2,
> >> or publishing it by November 8th in order to be eligible for Round 2. As
> >> Anders mentioned, the FDC and WMF are in a conversation to confirm the
> >> details, but WMF intends to apply for Round 2 of the 2013-14 FDC
> process.
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> Anasuya
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 2013/7/16 Lodewijk 
> >> >
> >> > > Maybe this has been asked elsewhere already, apologies in that case,
> >> but
> >> > > could someone clarify why the Wikimedia Foundation is not eligible
> any
> >> > more
> >> > > (and did not seem to send a letter of intent) for the FDC process?
> Does
> >> > > this mean WMF will only do core programs and shut down all other?
> Or is
> >> > > there another explanation I did not think of yet (this is of course,
> >> > > assuming the WMF is still intending to eat it's own dog food)?
> >> > >
> >> > > Best,
> >> > >
> >> > > Lodewijk
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2013/7/16 Garfield Byrd 
> >> > >
> >> > >> Dear members of the Wikimedia community:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Today, July 15, the Wikimedia Foundation published a list of Funds
> >> > >> Dissemination Committee (FDC) eligible entities [1] based the
> >> > eligibility
> >> > >> criteria [2] established in the FDC framework.  Entities that
> >> submitted
> >> > >> Letters of Intent [3] are categorized in 'Yes', 'Yes, If',  and
> 'No'
> >> > >> categories based the eligibility criteria.  Please let us know if
> you
> >> > >> believe there are any corrections to be made to this list.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> A more detailed eligibility checklist document has also been
> created.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> [4]
> >> > >>
> >> > >> This document outlines eligibility gaps that need to be closed by
> >> > September
> >> > >> 15, 2013. Any entity in the "Yes, If" category must post all
> missing
> >> > >> documents on Meta by September 15 to be eligible for FDC funding.
> >> > >> Entities in the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "How Wikipedia Works" on Wikibooks

[Chris Lee]

This also fits into the Wikisource scope; you could use the PDF with
the ProofreadPage
system. In contrast to the
Wikibooks version, this would match the original published version of the
book.




On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Thank you Phoebe and Charles!  I started adding and wikifying the
> tables of contents.
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
> > This is very wonderful!  I'll try to pitch in.
> >
> >A.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM, phoebe ayers 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'm pleased to announce that Charles Matthews and I re-licensed the
> text of
> >> our book "How Wikipedia Works", and the text is now in Wikibooks:
> >> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_Wikipedia_Works
> >>
> >> I'd like to issue an open invitation to help format and update the
> book. We
> >> published HWW in 2008, and while many of the chapters hold up today,
> others
> >> (especially those dealing with specific templates, etc) do not.
> >>
> >> In addition, there's a lot of additional new material to cover. For
> >> instance:
> >> * When the VisualEditor is stable, there should be a chapter about using
> >> the VE, followed up with more advanced chapters about wikitext
> >> * The education program and GLAM projects were just getting going when
> we
> >> published, and it would be nice to have a full chapter about these
> (since
> >> in my experience many of the readers of the book have been educators)
> >> * I'd love to see full chapters about each of the sister projects; I
> didn't
> >> have the space in the printed book or the expertise to write these
> >> originally, but covering all of Wikimedia was always part of my ideal
> book.
> >>
> >> Also, the figures are not in Wikibooks. While I will work on uploading
> the
> >> originals (it will be slow), I don't have all of them in a good format,
> and
> >> most of the screenshot-type figures need to be redone anyway. I'd love
> help
> >> with this.
> >>
> >> Of course, one of my great joys about the printed book was that it was
> so
> >> nicely produced; the publisher, No Starch Press, did a fantastic job of
> >> layout and the book itself is quite high-quality. For those who want
> that,
> >> the print book is still available for purchase; but making the Wikibooks
> >> text pretty should also be a goal (the current text was cut & pasted, so
> >> there's a lot of formatting that needs to be cleaned up).
> >>
> >> I know this has been a long time coming; that's my fault! This has been
> a
> >> side project for us for many years, and I was happy to recently find
> some
> >> time to work on it again. It's my hope that the book is still useful,
> and
> >> that we can make it more useful still for the future. (There's also a
> new
> >> website for the book at http://howwikipediaworks.net).
> >>
> >> best,
> >> phoebe
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
> 
> >> gmail.com *
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Asaf Bartov
> > Wikimedia Foundation 
> >
> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "How Wikipedia Works" on Wikibooks

[Samuel Klein]

Thank you Phoebe and Charles!  I started adding and wikifying the
tables of contents.

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
> This is very wonderful!  I'll try to pitch in.
>
>A.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm pleased to announce that Charles Matthews and I re-licensed the text of
>> our book "How Wikipedia Works", and the text is now in Wikibooks:
>> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_Wikipedia_Works
>>
>> I'd like to issue an open invitation to help format and update the book. We
>> published HWW in 2008, and while many of the chapters hold up today, others
>> (especially those dealing with specific templates, etc) do not.
>>
>> In addition, there's a lot of additional new material to cover. For
>> instance:
>> * When the VisualEditor is stable, there should be a chapter about using
>> the VE, followed up with more advanced chapters about wikitext
>> * The education program and GLAM projects were just getting going when we
>> published, and it would be nice to have a full chapter about these (since
>> in my experience many of the readers of the book have been educators)
>> * I'd love to see full chapters about each of the sister projects; I didn't
>> have the space in the printed book or the expertise to write these
>> originally, but covering all of Wikimedia was always part of my ideal book.
>>
>> Also, the figures are not in Wikibooks. While I will work on uploading the
>> originals (it will be slow), I don't have all of them in a good format, and
>> most of the screenshot-type figures need to be redone anyway. I'd love help
>> with this.
>>
>> Of course, one of my great joys about the printed book was that it was so
>> nicely produced; the publisher, No Starch Press, did a fantastic job of
>> layout and the book itself is quite high-quality. For those who want that,
>> the print book is still available for purchase; but making the Wikibooks
>> text pretty should also be a goal (the current text was cut & pasted, so
>> there's a lot of formatting that needs to be cleaned up).
>>
>> I know this has been a long time coming; that's my fault! This has been a
>> side project for us for many years, and I was happy to recently find some
>> time to work on it again. It's my hope that the book is still useful, and
>> that we can make it more useful still for the future. (There's also a new
>> website for the book at http://howwikipediaworks.net).
>>
>> best,
>> phoebe
>>
>>
>> --
>> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
>> gmail.com *
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "How Wikipedia Works" on Wikibooks

[Asaf Bartov]

This is very wonderful!  I'll try to pitch in.

   A.


On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm pleased to announce that Charles Matthews and I re-licensed the text of
> our book "How Wikipedia Works", and the text is now in Wikibooks:
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_Wikipedia_Works
>
> I'd like to issue an open invitation to help format and update the book. We
> published HWW in 2008, and while many of the chapters hold up today, others
> (especially those dealing with specific templates, etc) do not.
>
> In addition, there's a lot of additional new material to cover. For
> instance:
> * When the VisualEditor is stable, there should be a chapter about using
> the VE, followed up with more advanced chapters about wikitext
> * The education program and GLAM projects were just getting going when we
> published, and it would be nice to have a full chapter about these (since
> in my experience many of the readers of the book have been educators)
> * I'd love to see full chapters about each of the sister projects; I didn't
> have the space in the printed book or the expertise to write these
> originally, but covering all of Wikimedia was always part of my ideal book.
>
> Also, the figures are not in Wikibooks. While I will work on uploading the
> originals (it will be slow), I don't have all of them in a good format, and
> most of the screenshot-type figures need to be redone anyway. I'd love help
> with this.
>
> Of course, one of my great joys about the printed book was that it was so
> nicely produced; the publisher, No Starch Press, did a fantastic job of
> layout and the book itself is quite high-quality. For those who want that,
> the print book is still available for purchase; but making the Wikibooks
> text pretty should also be a goal (the current text was cut & pasted, so
> there's a lot of formatting that needs to be cleaned up).
>
> I know this has been a long time coming; that's my fault! This has been a
> side project for us for many years, and I was happy to recently find some
> time to work on it again. It's my hope that the book is still useful, and
> that we can make it more useful still for the future. (There's also a new
> website for the book at http://howwikipediaworks.net).
>
> best,
> phoebe
>
>
> --
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
> gmail.com *
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] "How Wikipedia Works" on Wikibooks

[phoebe ayers]

Hi all,

I'm pleased to announce that Charles Matthews and I re-licensed the text of
our book "How Wikipedia Works", and the text is now in Wikibooks:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_Wikipedia_Works

I'd like to issue an open invitation to help format and update the book. We
published HWW in 2008, and while many of the chapters hold up today, others
(especially those dealing with specific templates, etc) do not.

In addition, there's a lot of additional new material to cover. For
instance:
* When the VisualEditor is stable, there should be a chapter about using
the VE, followed up with more advanced chapters about wikitext
* The education program and GLAM projects were just getting going when we
published, and it would be nice to have a full chapter about these (since
in my experience many of the readers of the book have been educators)
* I'd love to see full chapters about each of the sister projects; I didn't
have the space in the printed book or the expertise to write these
originally, but covering all of Wikimedia was always part of my ideal book.

Also, the figures are not in Wikibooks. While I will work on uploading the
originals (it will be slow), I don't have all of them in a good format, and
most of the screenshot-type figures need to be redone anyway. I'd love help
with this.

Of course, one of my great joys about the printed book was that it was so
nicely produced; the publisher, No Starch Press, did a fantastic job of
layout and the book itself is quite high-quality. For those who want that,
the print book is still available for purchase; but making the Wikibooks
text pretty should also be a goal (the current text was cut & pasted, so
there's a lot of formatting that needs to be cleaned up).

I know this has been a long time coming; that's my fault! This has been a
side project for us for many years, and I was happy to recently find some
time to work on it again. It's my hope that the book is still useful, and
that we can make it more useful still for the future. (There's also a new
website for the book at http://howwikipediaworks.net).

best,
phoebe


-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
gmail.com *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] PRISM, government surveillance, and Wikimedia: Request for community feedback

[Tomasz W. Kozlowski]

Geoff Brigham wrote:


WMF is getting professional translations in German, French, Spanish, and
Japanese, and will post by Tuesday.


I know that the RfC on PRISM has already been closed, but I have only 
remembered this today: what happened with the professional translations 
of ? As far as I can see, the 
German, French and Spanish translations have all been created (and then 
reviewed) by volunteers, and the Japanese version isn't finished to this 
day.


I'm asking this question now because I noticed that Garfield (Byrd) has 
spoken about the translation of the Annual Plan into other languages in 
the current issue of the English Wikipedia Singpost, saying: "I am 
hoping that some key parts of the annual plan can be translated and the 
Foundation is prepared to commit resources to this task."


I understand that it is the prerogative of the Foundation to decide how 
they want to spend their budget, but seeing how (seemingly) badly the 
translation of the relative short announcement on PRISM has been 
managed, I'm not really convinced that getting professional translations 
of the Annual Plan is that good an idea.


Our caring and motivated translation community has proven many times in 
the past that they can provide good quality translations of even the 
most important content; after long years of waiting, we now can use 
wonderful software (the Translate extension) that makes the job smooth 
and easy, so I'd just like us to give the volunteers a try before 
spending huge amounts of money on translating stuff.


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Internal-l] 2013-2014 Round 1 FDC eligibility status & IRC office hours

[Nicole Ebber]

Hi Anasuya and Garfield,

please allow me a quick question:

* In 2012-13, the FDC grants (round 1 and 2) were $4.7 M plus the WMF
FDC grant of $4.5 M = a total of $9.2 M.
* In 2013-14, the FDC grants are budgeted with a total of $6 M.

What is unclear to me is if this $6 M are including the FDC grant the
WMF might apply for in round 2 or not. Can you clarify this for me?

Thanks a lot and best regards,
Nicole

On 18 July 2013 10:34, Lodewijk  wrote:
> Thanks Sam for the clarification. I'm sorry to hear this was not discussed
> in the board apparently. I hope you will be able to share the outcome of
> that discussion to remove any uncertainty that may have remained.
>
> I do agree that there was no major change in how the annual plan was
> handled this year - but I tried to put things in a perspective. The WMF did
> not try to 'compensate' the lack of FDC process this year by for example
> publishing the draft annual plan or financial plan earlier in the process
> for community review. I remain of the opinion (also towards chapters) that
> sharing early drafts to what they consider their memberships is often a
> good thing.
>
> While the FDC decision on the WMF request may not have been unanimous,
> since the fiscal year was fully started, people had been hired and even
> paid for, I don't think it would have been possible for them to make
> serious cuts. By the suboptimal process that was followed, it was
> definitely afterwards, and as the input for the process had already been
> board approved and also the output decision was a board decision, besides
> the fact that there is a whole discussion possible over core/non-core, I
> would have been very very surprised if anything else than 100% approval
> would have been the result. This is of course also why this process is
> changed. My point here was primarily that with all its flaws, not even this
> process was followed this year. Because imho it *was* indeed an improvement
> over the years before.
>
> Anasuya: My apologies for being confusing. I was of course referring to the
> approval of the WMF 2013/2014 non-core activities, not so much to the
> 2013/2014 FDC process. I understand from your email that you're confirming
> the clear explanation by Anders Wennersten. Thank you for that.
>
> Kind regards,
> Lodewijk
>
>
> 2013/7/18 Anasuya Sengupta 
>
>> Hi Lodewijk,
>>
>> Since you asked specifically about WMF not sending in a Letter of Intent
>> (LoI) to the FDC process, WMF - like any other entity interested in
>> applying for Round 2 - doesn't need to have sent it in by June 8th as did
>> those interested in applying for Round 1. Essentially, entities that are
>> interested in applying for Round 2 of any year have the option of either
>> publishing an LoI by June 8th, clarifying they intend to apply for Round 2,
>> or publishing it by November 8th in order to be eligible for Round 2. As
>> Anders mentioned, the FDC and WMF are in a conversation to confirm the
>> details, but WMF intends to apply for Round 2 of the 2013-14 FDC process.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Anasuya
>>
>> >
>> > 2013/7/16 Lodewijk 
>> >
>> > > Maybe this has been asked elsewhere already, apologies in that case,
>> but
>> > > could someone clarify why the Wikimedia Foundation is not eligible any
>> > more
>> > > (and did not seem to send a letter of intent) for the FDC process? Does
>> > > this mean WMF will only do core programs and shut down all other? Or is
>> > > there another explanation I did not think of yet (this is of course,
>> > > assuming the WMF is still intending to eat it's own dog food)?
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > >
>> > > Lodewijk
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2013/7/16 Garfield Byrd 
>> > >
>> > >> Dear members of the Wikimedia community:
>> > >>
>> > >> Today, July 15, the Wikimedia Foundation published a list of Funds
>> > >> Dissemination Committee (FDC) eligible entities [1] based the
>> > eligibility
>> > >> criteria [2] established in the FDC framework.  Entities that
>> submitted
>> > >> Letters of Intent [3] are categorized in 'Yes', 'Yes, If',  and 'No'
>> > >> categories based the eligibility criteria.  Please let us know if you
>> > >> believe there are any corrections to be made to this list.
>> > >>
>> > >> A more detailed eligibility checklist document has also been created.
>> > >>
>> > >> [4]
>> > >>
>> > >> This document outlines eligibility gaps that need to be closed by
>> > September
>> > >> 15, 2013. Any entity in the "Yes, If" category must post all missing
>> > >> documents on Meta by September 15 to be eligible for FDC funding.
>> > >> Entities in the “No” column who are currently ineligible for FDC
>> > funding or
>> > >> those who decide not to proceed with an FDC application are welcome to
>> > >> consider applying to the WMF Grants program. [5]
>> > >>
>> > >> On September 15, WMF will post the final list of the entities eligible
>> > >> to apply for FDC funding if they are eligible. Please note that
>> entities
>> > >> will need to remain in compliance with

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 9, Issue 28 -- 17 July 2013

[Wikipedia Signpost]

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation's new plans announced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-17/News_and_notes

WikiProject report: WikiProject Square Enix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-17/WikiProject_report

Featured content: Documents and sports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-17/Featured_content

Arbitration report: ''Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds'' case opens; July 22 
deadline for checkuser and oversight applications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-17/Arbitration_report

Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-17/Traffic_report


Single page view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single

PDF version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-17


http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
--
Wikipedia Signpost Staff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] About the wiki-adoption process

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 17.07.2013 07:03, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

David Cuenca, 17/07/2013 00:36:
Thanks for pointing that out, I have seen that there is a proposed 
process

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_project_process#Adopting_an_existing_project_into_Wikimedia

However it is not that clear what is the status of the SPCom... is it
meant to become a user group?


Not sure what you mean by user group, it's meant to be a WMF 
committee.




Just to make it clear, for the time being it is not a WMF committee and 
has no official status. It may become some day.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] fundraising test absurdly successful but still huge room for improvement

[David Cuenca]

That is a great improvement, BUT
http://xkcd.com/605/

That the experiment reached 100k per day doesn't mean that it will sustain
for the whole year, or that the pool of donors is large enough to reach the
endowment needs. Don't get me wrong, I hope your predictions are accurate,
just let's not get disappointed if the results don't match them.

As for some proposals to improve the fundraising experience, I loved the
Ubuntu donation screen that appears when you download the iso:
http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/questions?distro=desktop&bits=32&release=latest

Besides of providing a neat interface, it lets you allocate funds, sort of
"voting" with your donation :)

Micru

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:07 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> In the last week, the current fundraising test has stabilized at about
> $100,000 per day from showing the latest banners one time (per cookie)
> to 5% of logged out enwiki readers. It was falling from larger amounts
> during July 1st-10th, but at that time the banner was being offered to
> 5% of all page views, not 5% of IP addresses, so eventually everyone
> logged out was seeing them until that was fixed. The data is at
> http://frdata.wikimedia.org/
>
> That is quite a bit more than ever before. It represents a sustained
> capability of $2 million per day from enwiki alone, or probably at
> least $3 million per day from all projects. That would probably be
> enough to raise a full endowment in less than a year, or an endowment
> matching recent growth rates (not counting the last two years'
> slowdowns) in less than two years.
>
> However, we should still do multivariate testing of the remaining
> untested ~300 banner messages, because the variance of the tested
> messages (a minority of those submitted years ago) suggests that
> there's still an undiscovered ~2.5x improvement over the current
> message available from altering the goal statement in the main ask
> sentence in the current banners.
>
> On a likely related note, there has been no slowdown in the growth of
> the short popular vital articles, on a byte-per-time basis. They still
> continue to grow at about 4 bytes per day each. This has been constant
> for so long that I am beginning to think that the apparent reduction
> in the number of active editors (actually, active accounts) must be
> illusory as the growth and stabilization of controversial articles and
> topics reduces the motivation for editors to create replacement or
> alternate accounts.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] fundraising test absurdly successful but still huge room for improvement

[James Salsman]

In the last week, the current fundraising test has stabilized at about
$100,000 per day from showing the latest banners one time (per cookie)
to 5% of logged out enwiki readers. It was falling from larger amounts
during July 1st-10th, but at that time the banner was being offered to
5% of all page views, not 5% of IP addresses, so eventually everyone
logged out was seeing them until that was fixed. The data is at
http://frdata.wikimedia.org/

That is quite a bit more than ever before. It represents a sustained
capability of $2 million per day from enwiki alone, or probably at
least $3 million per day from all projects. That would probably be
enough to raise a full endowment in less than a year, or an endowment
matching recent growth rates (not counting the last two years'
slowdowns) in less than two years.

However, we should still do multivariate testing of the remaining
untested ~300 banner messages, because the variance of the tested
messages (a minority of those submitted years ago) suggests that
there's still an undiscovered ~2.5x improvement over the current
message available from altering the goal statement in the main ask
sentence in the current banners.

On a likely related note, there has been no slowdown in the growth of
the short popular vital articles, on a byte-per-time basis. They still
continue to grow at about 4 bytes per day each. This has been constant
for so long that I am beginning to think that the apparent reduction
in the number of active editors (actually, active accounts) must be
illusory as the growth and stabilization of controversial articles and
topics reduces the motivation for editors to create replacement or
alternate accounts.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Internal-l] 2013-2014 Round 1 FDC eligibility status & IRC office hours

[Lodewijk]

Thanks Sam for the clarification. I'm sorry to hear this was not discussed
in the board apparently. I hope you will be able to share the outcome of
that discussion to remove any uncertainty that may have remained.

I do agree that there was no major change in how the annual plan was
handled this year - but I tried to put things in a perspective. The WMF did
not try to 'compensate' the lack of FDC process this year by for example
publishing the draft annual plan or financial plan earlier in the process
for community review. I remain of the opinion (also towards chapters) that
sharing early drafts to what they consider their memberships is often a
good thing.

While the FDC decision on the WMF request may not have been unanimous,
since the fiscal year was fully started, people had been hired and even
paid for, I don't think it would have been possible for them to make
serious cuts. By the suboptimal process that was followed, it was
definitely afterwards, and as the input for the process had already been
board approved and also the output decision was a board decision, besides
the fact that there is a whole discussion possible over core/non-core, I
would have been very very surprised if anything else than 100% approval
would have been the result. This is of course also why this process is
changed. My point here was primarily that with all its flaws, not even this
process was followed this year. Because imho it *was* indeed an improvement
over the years before.

Anasuya: My apologies for being confusing. I was of course referring to the
approval of the WMF 2013/2014 non-core activities, not so much to the
2013/2014 FDC process. I understand from your email that you're confirming
the clear explanation by Anders Wennersten. Thank you for that.

Kind regards,
Lodewijk


2013/7/18 Anasuya Sengupta 

> Hi Lodewijk,
>
> Since you asked specifically about WMF not sending in a Letter of Intent
> (LoI) to the FDC process, WMF - like any other entity interested in
> applying for Round 2 - doesn't need to have sent it in by June 8th as did
> those interested in applying for Round 1. Essentially, entities that are
> interested in applying for Round 2 of any year have the option of either
> publishing an LoI by June 8th, clarifying they intend to apply for Round 2,
> or publishing it by November 8th in order to be eligible for Round 2. As
> Anders mentioned, the FDC and WMF are in a conversation to confirm the
> details, but WMF intends to apply for Round 2 of the 2013-14 FDC process.
>
> thanks,
> Anasuya
>
> >
> > 2013/7/16 Lodewijk 
> >
> > > Maybe this has been asked elsewhere already, apologies in that case,
> but
> > > could someone clarify why the Wikimedia Foundation is not eligible any
> > more
> > > (and did not seem to send a letter of intent) for the FDC process? Does
> > > this mean WMF will only do core programs and shut down all other? Or is
> > > there another explanation I did not think of yet (this is of course,
> > > assuming the WMF is still intending to eat it's own dog food)?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/7/16 Garfield Byrd 
> > >
> > >> Dear members of the Wikimedia community:
> > >>
> > >> Today, July 15, the Wikimedia Foundation published a list of Funds
> > >> Dissemination Committee (FDC) eligible entities [1] based the
> > eligibility
> > >> criteria [2] established in the FDC framework.  Entities that
> submitted
> > >> Letters of Intent [3] are categorized in 'Yes', 'Yes, If',  and 'No'
> > >> categories based the eligibility criteria.  Please let us know if you
> > >> believe there are any corrections to be made to this list.
> > >>
> > >> A more detailed eligibility checklist document has also been created.
> > >>
> > >> [4]
> > >>
> > >> This document outlines eligibility gaps that need to be closed by
> > September
> > >> 15, 2013. Any entity in the "Yes, If" category must post all missing
> > >> documents on Meta by September 15 to be eligible for FDC funding.
> > >> Entities in the “No” column who are currently ineligible for FDC
> > funding or
> > >> those who decide not to proceed with an FDC application are welcome to
> > >> consider applying to the WMF Grants program. [5]
> > >>
> > >> On September 15, WMF will post the final list of the entities eligible
> > >> to apply for FDC funding if they are eligible. Please note that
> entities
> > >> will need to remain in compliance with all Chapter Agreements and
> Grant
> > >> Agreements until funds are sent in order to receive a grant through
> the
> > FDC
> > >> process, even if eligibility is confirmed as "Yes" on 15 September.
> > >>
> > >> The detailed eligibility checklist has improved since the last round.
> > >> You’ll now note that the final column now outlines upcoming
> requirements
> > >> (e.g. per chapter or grant agreements or current grant requirements)
> to
> > >> maintain FDC eligibility status. These are noted as “potential gaps,”
> > and
> > >> as those deadlines come up, entities will n