Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations
Hi Itzik, thanks for your analysis and your thoughtful mail. I'd like to echo it! I also had some discussions with my peers in several countries about this report. Comments were made on the time of publication and the aggressiveness towards chapters, the volunteers who worked their as*** off to get their FDC proposal properly done and the FDC itself which is described to be part of some mafia-like conspirancy. slap in the face of the volunteers, pure hatred against chapters were named. I don't want to go into any more details, I'd like to have this conversation to be constructive and polite. I wonder what others say about this? It was surprisingly quiet here. A remark I want to make, to add to Itzik's thoughts: There were several times when the definition of community - concerning the Wikimedia Movement - was discussed. If WMF and WMF staff are part of the movement or the community. WMF people - and I am sure this included Sue especially - always fought for an inclusive approach of the term community, including WMF people which are hard working for the support and advancement of our community. In the report it is criticised, that people from chapter take away the seats from the community on the FDC, making sure that the chapters receive more funding. Lobbying at its best! Apart from the fact that these people have neen elected by the community, did anyone ever question that comment? In a country with a working chapter it is an obvious fact that the majority of *active* volunteers will in one way or another work with the chapter. Because this is exactly why they exist in the first place: Because volunteers themselves made them to happen, in order to support themselves with a legal framework, some local infrastructure to help them to achieve more than they could as individuals. Still almost all of the chapters have active volunteers as their board members. Being part of a chapter doesn't mean that one isn't part of the community anymore and that is true also for most of the people holding positions in a chapter. They should be even more thanked, doing two jobs - their volunteer project work and holding a position in a chapter - at once. I'd also like to see comments from FDC members on that issue as well. /Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations
Manuel Schneider skrev 2013-10-04 14:18: I'd also like to see comments from FDC members on that issue as well. We FDC members have also had an internal discussion on these issues, and our comments were not far off what you express, we are also engaged community members with good relations to chapters. Our conclusions were: *Everyone has the right of their own opinion, this also goes for Sue and her experience and management competence should be recognized *WMF is one entity of several in the movement, and should not be seen as mother entity to all other (Chapters) and risk of institutionalization goes for all entities *Key is to balance the increasing bureaucratization of chapters with spontaneity of the voluntary movement. As long as the chapters keep the spirit alive, they are the core of our institutionalized activities. We need to support them (but also have ways of supporting other initiatives, as well as keeping the bureaucracy, often sold under the label of professionalization, low). Anders ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations
Tack Anders för din snabbt svar! Am 04.10.2013 14:40, schrieb Anders Wennersten: *Key is to balance the increasing bureaucratization of chapters with spontaneity of the voluntary movement. As long as the chapters keep the spirit alive, they are the core of our institutionalized activities. We need to support them (but also have ways of supporting other initiatives, as well as keeping the bureaucracy, often sold under the label of professionalization, low). I fully agree with that. Seeing a FDC proposal of Amical should proof that we do have ways to support other initiatives, not speaking about GAC, IEG etc. /Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Funds Dissemination Committee: Report on first year of operations
For what it's worth, I've posted my own comments on Meta. I'd echo Manuel's comment that it's important to have these discussions in a professional and respectful way. As a movement we are still dealing with the issue of how to make the most of the funds and the opportunities we have. This will inevitably highlight differences of opinion and approach, but where those differences happen it's even more important to articulate those views respectfully. There's been much less of a sense of us and them recently and let's keep it that way. Chris Wikimedia UK On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Manuel Schneider manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch wrote: Hi Itzik, thanks for your analysis and your thoughtful mail. I'd like to echo it! I also had some discussions with my peers in several countries about this report. Comments were made on the time of publication and the aggressiveness towards chapters, the volunteers who worked their as*** off to get their FDC proposal properly done and the FDC itself which is described to be part of some mafia-like conspirancy. slap in the face of the volunteers, pure hatred against chapters were named. I don't want to go into any more details, I'd like to have this conversation to be constructive and polite. I wonder what others say about this? It was surprisingly quiet here. A remark I want to make, to add to Itzik's thoughts: There were several times when the definition of community - concerning the Wikimedia Movement - was discussed. If WMF and WMF staff are part of the movement or the community. WMF people - and I am sure this included Sue especially - always fought for an inclusive approach of the term community, including WMF people which are hard working for the support and advancement of our community. In the report it is criticised, that people from chapter take away the seats from the community on the FDC, making sure that the chapters receive more funding. Lobbying at its best! Apart from the fact that these people have neen elected by the community, did anyone ever question that comment? In a country with a working chapter it is an obvious fact that the majority of *active* volunteers will in one way or another work with the chapter. Because this is exactly why they exist in the first place: Because volunteers themselves made them to happen, in order to support themselves with a legal framework, some local infrastructure to help them to achieve more than they could as individuals. Still almost all of the chapters have active volunteers as their board members. Being part of a chapter doesn't mean that one isn't part of the community anymore and that is true also for most of the people holding positions in a chapter. They should be even more thanked, doing two jobs - their volunteer project work and holding a position in a chapter - at once. I'd also like to see comments from FDC members on that issue as well. /Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] 1.5 hour fundraising test in the US today
Hello everyone, Quick heads up: We are running fundraising banners today in the US to 100% of anonymous readers. The test will run for an hour and a half from 6:10am Pacific - 7:45amPacific (13:10--14:45 UTC). Since July, we've had banners up worldwide at a low level (showing to 6%-13% of anonymous readers). Today we're running a test in the US to compare results to a 100% anonymous traffic test we ran last year on this same day. If you're interested in learning more about fundraising, please check out our fundraising 2013 meta page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2013 Thank you have a a great Friday! Megan -- Megan Hernandez Director of Online Fundraising Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] 1.5 hour fundraising test in the US today
Good luck! Will check out the results when they're up :) *Katherine Bavage * *Fundraising Manager * *Wikimedia UK* +44 20 7065 0752 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 4 October 2013 13:55, Megan Hernandez mhernan...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hello everyone, Quick heads up: We are running fundraising banners today in the US to 100% of anonymous readers. The test will run for an hour and a half from 6:10am Pacific - 7:45amPacific (13:10--14:45 UTC). Since July, we've had banners up worldwide at a low level (showing to 6%-13% of anonymous readers). Today we're running a test in the US to compare results to a 100% anonymous traffic test we ran last year on this same day. If you're interested in learning more about fundraising, please check out our fundraising 2013 meta page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2013 Thank you have a a great Friday! Megan -- Megan Hernandez Director of Online Fundraising Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] : WMF resolution on neutral point of view
Indeed larger wikis have vibrant local communities that uphold NPOV for the most part. Such wikis would not be affected by such a board resolution too much as they essentially upload NPOV anyways. Smaller developing wikis on the other hand sometimes have people who even want to create policies that ban the notion of NPOV. We even had attempts of religious rules dictate content on ace.wikipedia for example. I would recommend against translating en.wikipedia's NPOV policy for such wikis as it is too complicated for a smaller wiki. Over time the wiki would develop the policy using such a board resolution as a guideline. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 2:48 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... I, for one, share your perception that NPOV is a problem on some (perhaps most) Wikipedias, asaf, could you please elaborate a little bit what you mean by this? do you not share the experience that the editors were able to come up with reasonable and well thought out rules they follow, since wikipedia exists? and many of the rules were discussed. and most of them discussed again? isn't this one of the cores which made wikipedia so successful? rupert. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
