Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Pine W wrote: > As a reminder: IRC is governed by Freenode. Channels can have their own > rules, and there are widely varying systems of internal governance for > Wikimedia IRC channels. I think it's important to note that WMF and the >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

As a reminder: IRC is governed by Freenode. Channels can have their own rules, and there are widely varying systems of internal governance for Wikimedia IRC channels. I think it's important to note that WMF and the Wikimedia community are guests on Freenode, and I'm uncomfortable with the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On 11/17/2016 04:57 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote: I would love to have a broader discussion about communication in the projects more generally. As you know, we currently have a few mechanisms (and please correct any mischaracterizations in the below): As people may know, we are working on a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Andrew Lih wrote: > Love it or hate it, Facebook as a way of linking together Wikimedians > across languages is a big plus (eg. projects like #100wikidays). > Ooh, man, you're pushing my hot button topics! I proposed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:36 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak > wrote: > > Until we have better tech available, I want to assure you that I want to > be > > available, and apart from Meta, I gladly offer

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

hi Rogol, On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > I quite understand that some members of the Board feel that there are more > important calls on their collective time and resources than engaging > directly with individual members of the community,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On 15 November 2016 at 18:36, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > Rather than IRC or video, which both have significant problems for > this type of open engagement, perhaps WMF could install a modern group > chat system, like Zulip, or another Slack-like tool. > ...snip... There is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > Until we have better tech available, I want to assure you that I want to be > available, and apart from Meta, I gladly offer IRC or video conversations, > or other media, to whoever feels it may be useful (let's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Dear Dariusz I quite understand that some members of the Board feel that there are more important calls on their collective time and resources than engaging directly with individual members of the community, even though some do feel that they may be able to as individuals. I note that you feel

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues to > board members at any time". To Jimmy and the board: This statement is, frankly, very much belied by the facts. In 2014, I delivered

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Hi Dariuz, I like how you're thinking. Perhaps the Board could make public use of Phabricator to triage and track issues. Rogol, I share some of the frustration about communication problems. However, I'd also like to note that Dariuz, Christophe, and Natalia have been responsive to discussions

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Dear Rogol, On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues to > board members at any time". > > It would be most helpful to know where and how the Board in general would > welcome such

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject) - was Agenda for the November 13, 2016 Board Meeting

On 11/13/16 5:57 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Jimmy > > You seem anxious to deflect my question by making an unfounded accusation > of distortion. I'm afraid you have misunderstood me. It is never appropriate to quote part of a conversation when the issue is broader. The board welcomes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject) - was Agenda for the November 13, 2016 Board Meeting

Jimmy You seem anxious to deflect my question by making an unfounded accusation of distortion. The plain meaning of the posting I quoted was that Board members had no more time to devote to engagement with community members than they were currently allocating, and you clearly have read the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Pavel Richter wrote: > […] >3. >So think hard before you grant confidentiality >If someone asks you to keep something they are going to tell you >confidential, think hard before you agree to it. In the case of James >Heilman (or any other board member),

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Heilman wrote: > 1) Yes everyone realizes that using a non free image in our fundraising > banners is not okay. It was a mistake. These things happen and we correct > them. Funny how the first response from a WMF employee was that they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject) We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography. This was a mistake by a designer. We specify in our contracts with outside designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and can

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

isplay the banners. > Cheers, > Peter > > -Original Message- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf > Of Lisa Gruwell > Sent: Thursday, 03 December 2015 9:30 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l]

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

: Friday, 04 December 2015 5:58 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject) Try when logged out - the links worked fine for me after logging out. Thanks, Mike > On 4 Dec 2015, at 15:54, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > Lisa, when yo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On 15-12-04 04:14 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > Funny how the first response from a WMF employee was that they thought > using stock images was OK. Please don't put words into my mouth that weren't there. I said that I didn't find it /concerning/, not that it was "OK". My point in that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Michael Peel wrote: > Try when logged out - the links worked fine for me after logging out. > They work fine for me even when logged-in. Since it's enwiki, you might check if you have the "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" gadget

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Wikimedia community consists of many professionals of very different trades. I am pretty sure we have professional graphic designers within the community who would willingly do the work done for free. Just a small effort should be done reaching them. --Base On 04.12.2015 2:21, geni wrote: On

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

+1 Marc. Both of us were volunteers for years before starting work at the WMF, and I'm sure we both have opinions that don't line up with the WMF's overall vision. Quoting Marc's personal thoughts as representative of the organization as a whole is not helpful for anyone involved. @Richard and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Hoi, I rather see the WMF pick up the work that it does not do. Money seems to be a dirty word but it is what makes some things possible. Money is raised by adverts. DEAL WITH IT When people say that they rather see the WMF and its need for money become less, they typically are well served . They

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Pine W wrote: > Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be able to > help with this kind of software development work for Commons and/or > Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia who might be >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > For me Commons and Wikisource could do with an abundant sprinkling of > improved user interface. > Well, of course. But, from where I see it, this is something to be address centrally: Commons and Wikisource

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

This is exactly why we need "Stuctured Data for Commons" and I for one was really disappointed to see it get tossed onto the back burner yet again: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Archive#Structured_metadata_for_Commons On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Gerard

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be able to help with this kind of software development work for Commons and/or Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia who might be interested, either as an individual or in association with a Wikimedia affiliate, in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Hoi, It is that time of year where money is asked from the people. Arguably we would do more when the Wikimedia foundation was not so FF-ing Wikipedia centred.The arguments for not giving Wikisource have passed their sell by date and usability for exposing its wonderful work is imho a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography. This was a mistake by a designer. We specify in our contracts with outside designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and can then share) or freely licensed images. We pulled that banner

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On 3 December 2015 at 19:29, Lisa Gruwell wrote: > We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography. > This was a mistake by a designer. > They made a mistake with a Getty image? >We pulled that banner yesterday >and asked our designers for a new

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Excellent (and prompt) resolution, thank you! We can all put down our pitchforks now. On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Lisa Gruwell wrote: > We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography. > This was a mistake by a designer. We specify in our

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

I don't think this rises to the level of outrage, but it's a little important. The goal of the WMF should be to promote free and open content, and this adds to the perception that the WMF is disconnected from those goals and the community. I don't care if they use a stock photo if they need to,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

That is not a small thing. That is an enormous thing. We show people some unfree image while propagating free stuff. Hypocrisy? We are speaking about thousands of people seeing it. It is good that the stuff was removed, but from my point of view that another image with link to an external

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

"On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Lisa Gruwell wrote: > We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography. > This was a mistake by a designer. We specify in our contracts with outside > designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

I doubt the selection of a single image occupied that much staff time and discussion. No process is perfect. This is a small thing, that was quickly fixed. I doubt a lot of money was wasted here. On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:11 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > "On Fri, Dec 4,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On 3 December 2015 at 23:30, Rob wrote: > > It was a photo of a cup of coffee. It was a mistake that was quickly > acknowledged and corrected. Let's keep things in perspective, please. > It was a Getty image on one of the most high profile sites on the web. Legal doesn't

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

hold it, back up the truck for a moment If the WMF has a fundraising team and a PR/media team why is it paying a third party to provide the banners surely someone should be able to design them in house, what about someone from the design teams working on other projects. If no one has the skills

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On 3 December 2015 at 23:29, Gnangarra wrote: > hold it, back up the truck for a moment > > If the WMF has a fundraising team and a PR/media team why is it paying a > third party to provide the banners surely someone should be able to design > them in house, what about

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Rob wrote: >It was a photo of a cup of coffee. It was a mistake that was quickly >acknowledged and corrected. Let's keep things in perspective, please. Agreed. I'd much rather see focus put on Liam's e-mail about the general fund-raising problem, the current solution to which is deploying

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On 15-12-02 09:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even > create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG I don't think I'm concerned about the foundation fundraising staff deciding to use a stock photo - expedience and all, but I'm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

29 million photos, 30 seconds type category:coffee cups https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coffee_cups 90 photos subcategory cups of coffee a further 700 images not really difficult to find or navigate to what you need. There is no excuse for fundraising team to not use a Free licensed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Hoi, It is. I am one of the people who agitated for Commons to be created in the first place. I care about Commons and I hate the lack of usability with a passion. Wikimedians on the other hand cost us additional money in order to cope with Commons. What is your problem in acknowledging that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

There is a big difference here between an individual and the Wikimedia Foundation using Wikimedia Commons On 3 December 2015 at 07:03, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > There is an excuse. You may know those categories, I do not and I do not > even try to find images in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Hoi, There is an excuse. You may know those categories, I do not and I do not even try to find images in Commons for my blog. It is too hard to find things. The search is neither efficient nor intuitive. For me Commons and Wikisource could do with an abundant sprinkling of improved user

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Apologies for missing out the subject :-( Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

Can't we please kept this to one thread were possible? This is now the third I believe. On Tuesday, December 31, 2013, James Salsman wrote: Neither of Calxeda's articles gives a figure for capital cost I think they went under the moment their first competitor charging typical markups