Jimbo
I understand you to say that the WMF could have afforded to spend $5M on
direct support of volunteer contributors had it chosen to, without
prejudice to the decision to place $5M into the Endowment. I seem to
recall that you stated on Wikipedia that "I support expansion of the
scholarship
Hello Shani,
I lurk here, but don't really post. I am a regular poster at Wikipediocracy
where I saw a discussion of this thread. I'll make one specific comment and
one general comment.
When I read the RfC and I got to proposal #4, I thought that it might just
as well have been written specifical
Then perhaps the blog posts were over-enthusiastic. There is a current
discussion on this topic at the English-language Wikipedia, but not at the
link Andrew gave: it is at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC:_New_subsection_under_.22Not_a_Newspaper.22_about_comm
Hi everyone,
I wanted to give you all a heads up about the upcoming Dev Summit. This year
the Summit will be held in San Francisco on January 22nd and 23rd, 2018. We are
still finalizing the details and will be sending out the call for participation
soon. But meantime, we wanted to share a prev
I haven't taken part in discussions about the endowment for several
years, not least because the argument appears to have been won and an
endowment is being established. But if things have changed so much
that people are arguing that there is a choice between long-term
stability and short-term cont
While I would (and have) strongly opposed both threats and actual
contacting of employerst of volunteers, I think the situation here is
somewhat different.
Firstly WMF employees are not subject to community sanction insofar as
their paid roles go. Secondly it is perfectlying normal to have an
es
Agreed. Your message is a great improvement.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Andreas Kolbe
Sent: Friday, 25 August 2017 9:15 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] New style banner - A heads
Sam,
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Fair enough, I agree that the idea that Wikimedia would have been a
> success if it'd be made commercial is crazy.
You say that now, but originally, Wikipedia was registered as a dotcom,
with the idea that the site would h
I'd like to second what Rob has expressed here. This list already suffers a
very poor reputation within our community, even as it is positioned as an
important part of our communications ecosystem.
Allowing participants to intimidate others and exact "in real life"
consequences should be dealt wit
Dear all,
I should have mentioned that we are working on a formal response regarding
the request to ban subscribers from the list.This is an issue that has been
raised during this discussion and we are carefully considering our thoughts
on the matter, as we did for the 4 points that we already req
Hello,
Just a general remark.
It is actually possible to create a huge website with a lot of content,
even if you are commercial. Wikia (or "Fandom powered by Wikia) is an
example, Baidu Baike another one. Maybe its not exactly the same (sort of)
people who contribute. But I find it highly specul
Interesting and well-considered perspective, Rob. I appreciate your voice
in this discussion.
Beyond this specific incident, which remains important, I agree, would any
of the three policies proposed address this issue? Is there a policy
amendment that you would like to see?
Thank you for your co
I am grateful that the moderators have taken some action, but I am
disappointed that contacting a person's employer is not yet seen as an
uncrossable line here.
Out of respect to your call for civility I will refrain from directly
responding to the person in question despite his allegations agains
Thank you, Shani. My new favorite word is "automagically". And thank you
all for working on new ideas for list moderation.
/a
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Shani Evenstein
wrote:
> Dear Wikimedia-l,
>
> Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
> been made to b
We should not sink to "alternative facts" Not even to the American public, who
seem to be accustomed to them. We should provide a better example.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Sam Wilson
Sent: Thursday, Au
Hi all, happy Friday. I'm a member of the foundation's online fundraising
team and wanted to add a few points and answers to this good discussion.
I'll use bullet-points to separate each topic:
- For clarification, this was a 1-hour test that ran from 15 to 16 UTC
on Wednesday. We haven't ad
On 8/21/17 6:48 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> I'm know that the WMF has determined that it should have some form of
> endowment, The question is -- as is usual in question of this sort -- one
> of balance: in this case, balance between current spending for the benefit
> of the projects today, and
Dear Wikimedia-l,
Rogol has been placed under moderation, but at this point no decision has
been made to ban him from the list. As long as his messages are reasonable,
respectful and on point, his messages will go through. We agreed that it is
important to allow a diversity of voices to be heard,
18 matches
Mail list logo