On 16 May 2012 15:29, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>(about 100+ takedown demands a year that we challenge
> successfully 95% of the time)
That is a statistic you should boast about more often.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
U
On 17 May 2012 12:43, Anthony wrote:
> In fact, I think someone at WMF should contact Amazon and see if
> they'll let us conduct the experiment for free, in exchange for us
> creating the dump for them to host as a public data set
> (http://aws.amazon.com/publicdatasets/).
What dump are you going
On 17 May 2012 13:32, Anthony wrote:
> Because they are XML dumps, mainly. The data in the WMF database is
> compressed in a format which can be easily randomly accessed.
It's a dump. It's not supposed to be randomly accessed. We're talking
about archives, not mirrors.
_
James, you're emigrating? I never thought I'd see that...
Congratulations, traitor!
On 17 May 2012 17:52, Howie Fung wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> It’s my pleasure to announce that James Forrester is joining our San
> Francisco office as a Technical Product Analyst, supporting the Visual
> Editor team.
On 2 June 2012 13:44, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Du Hart wrote:
>> What personal information do you think is contained in an IPv6 address?
>
> Don't they sometimes contain MAC address information?
I don't know, but I wouldn't consider my MAC address to be personal
info
The man is just bitter. Ignore him.
On 2 June 2012 16:16, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Fortunately, average Slashdotter is not a moron [1], like he is.
>
> Does anyone know does he have some new project which needs promotion
> in media? And may WMF give some money to him, not to mess around?
>
> [1]
>
On 2 June 2012 23:33, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> Whatever one thinks of Larry Sanger's campaign regarding
> sexual material on Wikipedia or Commons, and I'm not endorsing
> everything he says, it should be clear from examination that he holds
> his views sincerely. Personally attacking him a
On 3 June 2012 13:52, Chris Keating wrote:
> An alternative methodology would be to account for the value that would be
> required to replace Wikipedia if it didn't exist. As an example of this
> methodology you could take the traded price of a Wikipedia substitute (e.g.
> Britannica Online is £50
On 3 June 2012 18:25, Fred Bauder wrote:
> We are serving up our product at cost. That we might, by rent seeking,
> charge a much higher price is due more to the geometry of possible rent
> seeking opportunities than to economic factors. Rent seeking, or profits,
> is an optional cost imposed by p
On 4 June 2012 13:57, David Gerard wrote:
> AIUI, weekdays office hours are our peak access period, and Wikipedia
> generally isn't blocked in offices the way Facebook, etc. often are.
> This suggests it's good for *something* economically.
It's good for lowering the productivity of offices! I oc
Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software
automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply
whether you have an email address attached to your account or not.
This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being done
with their dat
On Jun 25, 2012 5:22 AM, "K. Peachey" wrote:
>
> And this has what to do with the Wikimedia-l List?
FSF are a partner of ours, so I guess it is on topic. I found it
interesting.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: h
In what sense do these visitors have a "one-year term" when they are
actually just attending one meeting?
And why doesn't the board just allow anyone that wants to come along
to observe their meetings?
On 27 June 2012 23:58, phoebe ayers wrote:
> All,
> FYI
>
> The Board of Trustees passed a res
On 28 June 2012 22:59, Mike Dupont wrote:
> Well I am not a deletionist, I am just pointing out that there is a
> very strange criteria for deletion on the wikipedia, that is why i
> started the speedydeletion.wikia.com
The article has several references to independent reliable sources
that spec
On 28 June 2012 23:10, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
wrote:
> Could we keep this thread on topic please ?
The thread has no topic. It was just an announcement pointing to the
RFC, all the discussion is taking place there. There's no harm in
re-purposing this thread to discuss a related topic.
On 28 June 2012 23:26, Nathan wrote:
> I think we should debate what is and isn't thread hijacking, and when it
> may or may not be appropriate.
The weather today in London was wonderful.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Uns
Wikipedia is down for me. I suggest we swarm on to IRC in large
numbers - that always helps!
On 2 July 2012 22:50, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> After ten minute and three unsuccessful attempts to categorise an image via
> Hotcat I've now got the following error message:
>
> Request: GET
> http://c
On 3 July 2012 20:05, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
> would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
> to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I
> wish we could giv
On 16 July 2012 14:44, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Anyway, letting this aside, will the board consider whether all slightly
> affected communities agree with whatever request happened to receive
> community support somewhere?
> For instance, I'm not sure there's any simple solution which can be
On 22 July 2012 13:51, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Here are the links to the chapter reports for WMNL in the months May
> and June 2012. Earlier, when I send reports, I got complaints that I
> have to (?) include the whole texts, but as the links should work
> fine, I don't see a reason for
Where is the WMF annual plan? My understanding was that it was
supposed to be published by the end of last week.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Thank you for publishing this. Where is the best place to discuss this plan?
On 28 July 2012 04:58, Tilman Bayer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the Wikimedia Foundation's 2012-13 Annual Plan has just been published at
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR
On Jul 29, 2012 3:33 AM, "Béria Lima" wrote:
>
> 46 millions?? That is a joke right? Please someone tell me that this is a
> joke.
It's not a very large increase on last year. It's a little tricky to make
sure you are comparing like with like given the new way of treating chapter
revenues and spe
On Jul 29, 2012 3:45 AM, "Risker" wrote:
>
> I'm more curious about where the 9.9 million in revenue will come from in
> Q4, to be honest. (P.64 of the plan)
The plan does seem to be missing the details on revenue... Isn't there
normally a slide breaking down revenue into fundraiser, grants, maj
On Jul 29, 2012 7:01 AM, "MZMcBride" wrote:
>
> Risker wrote:
> > This is a very good point, Thomas. Why exactly is there no place on a
> > community wiki where this is being discussed? Instead it is being
> > discussed on a mailing list to which the vast majority of the community
> > does not s
On 29 July 2012 15:17, wrote:
> It seems to me despite the WMF's stated confidence, that the FDC allocating
> money to WMF for the GAC is somewhat questionable. Given that the WMF has
> failed, so far, to show a capacity for properly administering the existing
> grants by providing a timely re
On 29 July 2012 07:11, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Let's use the page we used to use to discuss plans and budgets:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
Ok. I've posted a couple of questions there for the WMF to answer
regarding the GAC and FDC.
___
On 29 July 2012 21:52, Steven Walling wrote:
> Our blog post reporting back on the trip to Brazil is here, in English and
> Portuguese: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/03/22/brazil-meetups-march/
That reads like it was a meeting with a selection of Brazilian
Wikipedians. That does not equate with
On 29 July 2012 22:33, Steven Walling wrote:
> I can see how you would think this if you're not involved with these
> communities, but a clear majority of the active editors on Portuguese
> Wikipedia are in fact Brazilian. The description given is not inaccurate.
While I may not be involved in th
On 29 July 2012 22:48, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> While I may not be involved in the Portuguese Wikipedia, I do have a
>> masters degree in mathematics, so I can reliably inform you that
>> "majority" is no
On 29 July 2012 22:57, Nathan wrote:
> Can your masters degree in mathematics point out where in Wikimedia's
> statement it said "all" or implied anything other than having met some of
> Portuguese Wikipedia's top contributors? Not sure what the big deal is.
The word "all" actually appeared in my
On 29 July 2012 07:11, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Let's use the page we used to use to discuss plans and budgets:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
I thought this was implicit, but apparently not: can someone from the
WMF please answer the questions that are on that page?
___
On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner wrote:
> I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe
> I was looking at the wrong page?
The questions are on the page SJ suggested using:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
On 6 August 2012 20:43, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Could you get back to the BBC, please, David, and tell them that they
> somehow seem to have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick here? And
> could you drop the "gaffer tape and string" jokes next time round?
We operate the fifth most visited we
On 6 August 2012 21:06, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> $35 million is not "a few million dollars".
But not all of that is spent on site operations.
> All fine and dandy, but then let's please do our best to ensure that the
> BBC don't print "gaffer tape and string" sob stories about us. The tenner
> tha
David, the BBC says you told them the following:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > See, this is where you part ways with how the media works. These days
> > > > I count it as a win if anything in quotes uses words I've ever used
> in
> > > &g
Well, it was added by Matthew Roth, one of the WMF's comms people. I don't
know if it originated with him, but he should be able to tell its more.
I agree with its removal. It's a very strange but of text to have in board
member bios. Including the board member's accomplishments is fine, but they
On 12 August 2012 04:37, Michael Snow wrote:
> I don't favor locking it. We will need to update the strategic plan in a
> couple years. The original plan was intended to last through 2015, and I
> think the next planning process will need to start no later than 2014 (to
> say nothing of interim up
On 20 August 2012 12:08, James Heilman wrote:
> A question about copyright, who owns the copyright on Xrays and are they
> even copyrightable? I have uploaded a few of them and no one seems to know
> the answer. I guess the options would be:
Why is it any different to any other work created durin
On 20 August 2012 12:30, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> a) if the picture is taken automatically by machine in routine way (in
> case of X-ray, NMR and some other techinques this is usually atomatic
> and routine) - they are not copyrightable, as this is not any creative
> work.
I think you are underesti
On 20 August 2012 14:25, Anthony wrote:
> If "X ray techs are specifically not to use creative license even
> though their job requires skill" then this would be evidence in
> support of one set of facts.
"Creative license" refers to the work containing something which isn't
strictly accurate be
On 20 August 2012 18:27, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:
> In the US, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
> (HIPAA) governs release of medical information, which includes any medium,
> including spoken, written, or electronically stored. This includes videos,
> photographs
On 21 August 2012 19:44, wrote:
> In most cases ( Covering the significant majority of all x-rays existing, but
> not ruling out the possibility of rare uses of X-ray photography as an
> artistic medium) . . .
>
> 7 None of the above
>
> Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable
http://commons.wikim
On 22 August 2012 20:50, Anthony wrote:
> It possibly has a very thin copyright.
Copyright doesn't have thickness. Either it is copyrightable or it isn't.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia
On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, "Nathan" wrote:
> Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
> there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
> entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
> Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has penetrated whate
On 7 September 2012 20:40, Daniel Zahn wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
> wrote:
>
>> and I'm wondering how they will sue for importing content that is on free
>> license...
>
> Well, it's "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike", so will have to
> attribute Wikit
On 7 September 2012 20:59, Daniel Zahn wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> Why attribute Wikitravel? The license only requires the author to be
>> attributed, not the first publisher. Ideally, content will be copied
>> across w
On 7 September 2012 21:11, emijrp wrote:
> When we use 1911 Britannica texts, we only attribute to the encyclopedia,
> not its authors, so we can put "This text comes from Wikitravel".
We use 1911 Britannica texts because they are in the public domain. We
don't have to attribute them at all, but
On 7 September 2012 21:25, Michael Peel wrote:
> We encourage attribution of Wikipedia articles as:
>
> "This article uses material from the Wikipedia article "[[Metasyntactic
> variable]]", which is released under the
> [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ Creative Commons
> Attribu
On 8 September 2012 14:12, Andrew Gray wrote:
> One quick question - will the Audit Committee work with/oversee the
> finances of the FDC as well? The FDC has its own Ombudspeople (person?
> not sure if it's one or two) but it's not clear whether the scope of
> the AC has expanded to take account
On 11 September 2012 09:41, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Reading through it now I have had time, and with my legal cap on..
>
> IB probably have a strong enough case to win some of their claims (which is
> how civil suits often work).
>
> The behaviour they describe,* if true*, is disappointing (on a pe
They're going to help their clients by writing useful, policy compliant
articles? Damn them!
In all seriousness, apart from the suggestion of meatpuppetry, it sounds
like it might actually be a good service. The internet is on the way to
becoming a much better place now search engine algorithms ar
On 12 September 2012 08:45, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Also from Para 1, how can a person violate a contract without being a party
> to it?
That's what tortuous interference is all about. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
___
Wikimed
On 19 September 2012 10:46, David Gerard wrote:
> On 19 September 2012 10:24, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> He gets to decide which town goes forward,
>> and whichever town goes forward pays him a consultancy fee.
>
>
> This, OTOH, is spurious made-up bullshit.
No, it's pretty accurate. Roger made the
On 19 September 2012 12:51, David Gerard wrote:
> On 19 September 2012 12:08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 19 September 2012 10:46, David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 19 September 2012 10:24, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>>>> He gets to decide which town goes forward,
>>
On Sep 28, 2012 9:45 PM, "Nathan" wrote:
>
> Wow. I honestly didn't think the conflict of interest issue was this
> serious.
The conflict wasn't that bad, but the very poor handling of it casts
serious doubts on how well Wikimedia UK leadership understands its
responsibilities and its ability to
How about you shake your addiction to secrecy and tell us what the problem
is?
On Sep 28, 2012 11:20 PM, "Michael Peel"
wrote:
>
> On 28 Sep 2012, at 23:17, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> > On 28 September 2012 23:00, Michael Peel
> wrote:
> >
> >> Please note that I have been requesting an urgent cor
What is the current status of the WCA? The last update I can find is an
email from Ziko to this list on 24 August (a month and a half ago) saying
there would be a full report soon. Have I missed that report or are we
still waiting for it?
___
Wikimedia-l
Thanks for the update. Has there been any progress with incorporating (or
even deciding where to incorporate)? If not, what is your intention for the
hiring process? Will the SG be hired by one of the chapters, or something?
On Oct 6, 2012 4:20 PM, "Fae" wrote:
> On 6 October 2012
It seems clear to me, based on the end result and what foundation board and
senior staff have said, that they decided an account of money they wanted
to request from the FDC and then decided what to designate as non-core so
that it added up to that amount.
Rather disingenuous of them, but Sue has
On 10 October 2012 00:31, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Agreed. If we split movement-wide costs into "essential", "high
> priority", and "non-core", I think the FDC should grow to review most
> of the non-essential funds. Which would include more than 10% of the
> WMF budget.
If you view it from a func
The consultant has apparently been chosen already based on a recommendation
from Pavel. What other consultants were considered? What was the process?
Did you get competing quotes?
On Oct 10, 2012 10:39 PM, "Fae" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have created <
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapt
On Oct 11, 2012 10:38 PM, "Fae" wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, discussing where
> might be the best location for WCA administration may take several
> months due to the political, tax and financial implications that
> everyone is keen to worry about.
It's been several months already... The WCA was cre
On 14 October 2012 20:19, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Indeed; I remember some (internal) announcements around this, which
> caused me and no doubt others to while away an evening just after
> deployment clicking helpful/unhelpful :)
I didn't spend an entire evening on it, but I can certainly say those
On Oct 15, 2012 6:06 PM, "Yann Forget" wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This announcement is worrying, to say the least.
> In other words, the Wikimedia Foundation is doing a partnership with
> one of the most retrograde government, which is also a regular censor
> on Internet content.
> How could you justif
On 21 October 2012 22:29, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> The connection is that it is an example of the significantly more
> negative/hostile environment and failure of en.wp's governance structure
> that harms editor retention; this is something that could have been studied
> and reported on by the Fello
Bishaka,
Seeing as there was no public discussion of these amendments, to my
knowledge, can you at least explain them now?
The responsibilities of the Secretary and Treasurer are board
responsibilities. While the day-to-day work of the role may be delegated to
staff, it is still the job of the bo
On Nov 2, 2012 3:07 PM, "Bishakha Datta" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> >
> > The responsibilities of the Secretary and Treasurer are board
> > responsibilities. While the day-to-day work of the role may be
delegated to
You're taking about a whistleblower policy[1], essentially. Normally, they
are restricted to reporting violations off the law, rather than internal
policies (see the Foundation's policy[2] for example) but there is no
reason we couldn't have a broader one.
It would need to be quite limited in scop
Transparency is necessary for democracy, but it is only one part of it. I
think Lodewijk wants to discuss ways of involving the community in the
Foundation's governance, not just ways to keep it informed.
On Nov 3, 2012 12:48 PM, "Patricio Lorente"
wrote:
> 2012/11/3 Ilario Valdelli :
> > On Fri,
I would be very surprised if the trustee Secretary actually took minutes...
That would usually be delegated...
On Nov 6, 2012 12:02 AM, "Risker" wrote:
> It would strike me that one of the "urgencies" that might be involved is
> the fact that this resolution was passed so that the Board member wh
he minutes and posting
> resolutions?
>
> Further, it's to improve compliance with legislation. Thus, it's
> housekeeping.
>
> Risker
>
> On 5 November 2012 19:04, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > I would be very surprised if the trustee Secretary actually took
> minu
On Nov 15, 2012 7:26 PM, "Dariusz Jemielniak" wrote:
>
> and also that WCA membership fees have been deducted
> for everyone (but not other WCA-related costs), as WCA may apply for FDC
> funding directly (or choose a different model, once it is decided, and the
> organization incorporated).
Can y
If nobody gave funding to things that aren't operational yet, not a lot
would happen...
On Nov 15, 2012 8:03 PM, "Nathan" wrote:
>
> It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs
> entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any
> meaningful operations or presence.
I agree that the explanations could be more details. In particular, I would
be interested to know where some of the numbers came from. For example,
take WMUK. I agree that WMUK's plan was over ambitious, but how did the FDC
come to that particular recommendation? Presumably they had some kind of
re
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I
thought a lot more t
On 16 November 2012 13:06, Osmar Valdebenito wrote:
> Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any
> problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't
> expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
Yes, you can. When you volunteer for a posit
On Nov 17, 2012 7:28 PM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote:
>
> Thomas Dalton, 16/11/2012 13:25:
>
>> I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
>> discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
>> hadn'
This is an interesting idea, and makes a lot of sense. Non-English
fundraising hasn't really had the attention it needs in previous years (for
obvious reasons - it's more efficient to focus your attention where you can
achieve the most) and this should make a big difference.
I'm curious, as you do
On Nov 26, 2012 5:15 PM, "Nathan" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Zack Exley wrote:
>
> >
> > This year we did something different and went up all over the world for
24
> > hours on Nov 15 as sort of a dress rehearsal. That really helped us to
> > identify a lot of little things to f
On 27 November 2012 15:06, Lodewijk wrote:
> Thanks for the announcement. I'm curious how it will work out.
>
> Would it be possible to give a ballpark figure on what percentage of what
> amount you're expecting/aiming to collect in these five countries in this
> month, and how much in the rest of
On 28 November 2012 14:41, Charles Andrès wrote:
> In fact we haven't seen the link before but we had the same in Switzerland,
> it seems that in a way people complain about the traditional banners that are
> to intrusive, but in the other hand they are more suspicious and have doubt
> about ba
On Nov 28, 2012 3:06 PM, "cyrano" wrote:
>
> Non-informed people have an image of Wikipedia "run by volunteers".
Do they? In that case, we've been really successful. It used to be that the
first thing we had to do before we could get someone to donate was explain
to them that we're not a massive
On Nov 28, 2012 3:39 PM, "cyrano" wrote:
>
> Which is completely normal. An image of volunteers building a great
project for a great cause was constantly set up in every single
communication, during years. So that's what uninformed people would believe.
> But, from the moment someone asks for mone
On 3 December 2012 20:11, Pavel Richter wrote:
> "the thing we are selling to people" As I see it, we are not *selling
> *anything.
> Wikimedia provides a free encyclopedia to the public, and it promotes Free
> Knowledge worldwide. For this, we ask for donations, during a limited time
> each year,
Mass copyright violation for profit... hard to defend, really.
Don't they have libraries?
On 4 December 2012 00:07, Richard Symonds
wrote:
> I was going to send this just to comcom, but I think all of us should read
> it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20576409
>
> A small shop in De
Zack, you may want to look up "sample bias"... Of course you don't get many
complaints from the people that responded positively to the banners...
On Dec 4, 2012 5:56 PM, "Zack Exley" wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Zack Exley wrote:
>
> > Unacceptable!
>
>
> Sorry Max, your tone and la
On Dec 4, 2012 7:56 PM, "Zack Exley" wrote:
> Next year, we'll discuss options and do some surveys of logged in and
> not-logged-in users and try to make a good decision about what the least
> painful way for all will be to raise the money.
Collating some good quality data would be great. Make su
On 7 December 2012 13:55, Pradeep Nair wrote:
> I read through the document and was genuinely confused as to what was
> happening. This may be because I have little idea on the people and their
> positions presently.
I think the problem is that Sue's email was originally written for the
staff l
On 7 December 2012 00:04, Sue Gardner wrote:
> First, we’re going to revamp Global Development. Starting now, that
> department will be called Grantmaking and Programs. It will be co-led
> by Anasuya (grantmaking) and Frank (programs). Anasuya and Frank will
> have separate direct reports and budg
On Dec 14, 2012 3:37 PM, "Zack Exley" wrote:
> Since we took banners down for everyone, we've
> mostly been displaying them only 1 or 2 times to people who've never seen
> them. Though yesterday we pushed that up to 10 because we're hoping to
> reach our US$25 million goal in the next few days.
O
On Dec 17, 2012 2:21 PM, "Michael Jahn" wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> just a brief update from Wikimedia Deutschland on our current fundraising
> campaign. It's been running since November 13, involving variations of
facts
> banners in combination with personal appeals. We're on track to reaching
our
>
Have you considered doing some longer tests? Lasting a week, say. It would
enable you to do proper multivariate testing, including dependencies
between variables (which I don't think you have done any real tests of
yet). It would also let you test time dependence. Eg., does a particular
message wor
On 17 December 2012 17:28, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Thomas writes:
>> You could also model banner fatigue properly, which could be very useful.
>
> Yes, a detailed model of banner fatigue would be fascinating.
>
> It's certainly something studied by many groups in different contexts;
> ideally we'd l
Raising money you don't need would be a gross breach of a charity trustee's
fiduciary duties...
On Dec 21, 2012 3:55 PM, "James Salsman" wrote:
> Sj,
>
> I appreciate your kind words because I am somewhat frustrated.
>
> > thank you for your nuanced statistical comments; something we could use
>
Money for reasonable reserves is money you need...
On Dec 21, 2012 4:22 PM, "David Gerard" wrote:
> On 21 December 2012 16:18, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > Raising money you don't need would be a gross breach of a charity
> trustee's
> > fiduciary duti
On Dec 21, 2012 5:48 PM, "James Salsman" wrote:
>
> > Costs don't scale linearly with pageviews. Nor do donations,
> > especially when you consider that much of that growth in pageviews now
> > comes from the 'Global South' (where people generally have less
> > disposable income to donate) and fro
On Dec 24, 2012 6:42 AM, "Liam Wyatt" wrote:
>
> Whereas I'm confused.
I think it is James that is confused...
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
This mailing list is not a suitable venue for a detailed discussion about
investment strategy. There are a lot of different things you have to take
into account when choosing investments. If the foundation wants to
investigate other investment options they need to get a professional
investment cons
On Dec 27, 2012 10:50 PM, "James Salsman" wrote:
> > this is the most current iteration of a type of thread
> > that I find contributes a great deal of stress to my work here. There
are a
> > number of assumptions that strike me as bad faith and many of them are
> > targeted at people I work with
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
