I appreciate the comments of Jan-Bart and DeltaQuad regarding process and
openness, although I feel that we're veering off topic a little from the
subject of COIs.
Since we're veering anyway, I would like to make a distinction between
providing openness and providing notice. To the best of my
That is not wholly accurate. There was a news brief in the 8th of October
issue of *The Signpost*[1] which in addition to individual subscriptions is
also sent to wikimedia-l.
*WMF to narrow its focus?*: Sue
Gardnerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sue_Gardner,
the executive director of the
ENWP Pine, 01/11/2012 10:14:
Since we're veering anyway, I would like to make a distinction between
providing openness and providing notice. To the best of my ability to
see, Sue's deliberations weren't announced here on Wikimedia-l by anyone
from WMF.
There's nothing strange in this, it's
Of note though, she did freely invite comments on the proposal. Of course
its still her decision, but now we at least have the community view on it,
whether positive or negative. I also would like to thank Sue for making
this as open as it is.
---
DeltaQuad - Mobile Tablet
English
Hi,
So just as a note from me personally (as a individual WMF Trustee member). What
I think is the general idea is that
1) Sue formulates her thoughts on meta rather than privately
2) This is influenced by the public discussion on meta
3) She wraps up at a certain point
4) and sends her final
Just a comment on the discussion:
I would find it refreshing if people were not defending funds that
apply mostly to themselves. I saw, in discussions of the essay,
arguments by researchers saying that more money should go to
researchers, by fellows and want-to-be fellows that the fellowship
Well, I am a former Fellow e.g. there is no chance that I'll get another
Fellowship and I have no connection to the research but wholehartedly agree
with thses programmes continuation.
And your theory of give us, [insert you definiton here] more money
completely breaks down on the Global South
I owe a number of good people an apology. I have worked for several
self-protecting bureaucracies myself, and it
is possible, though not easy, , for individuals to do good work there.
I never intended to imply that everyone there is incompetent, though
it is certainly my opinion that some of the
I'm kind sad to see the my personal view of the Wikimedia movement
increasingly distant from Sue's view...
I believe sister projects are deeply important and potential (we have a
Universal Library (Wikisource), a Universal Media Archive (Commons), a
Universal Dictionary (Wiktionary), etc.) They
Why when we talk about editor engagement we think exclusively about new
editors? How about retaining people, who already made Wikipedia (= the
product) and keep maintaining it?
Retention of people who have made dozens of edits is about the same as
it's ever been. Retention of people who've
On 21 October 2012 22:29, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com 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
On 21 October 2012 22:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
As I understand it, the biggest problem with editor retention at the
moment is the second edit. By that point, they haven't had any
interaction with our governance structure, so that can't really be the
cause.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
Retention of people who have made dozens of edits is about the same as
it's ever been. Retention of people who've made a handful of edits has
declined substantially since 2005, even though new users still show up
at the
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
Retention of people who've made a handful of edits has
declined substantially since 2005, even though new users still show up
at the same rate.
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Since
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
Retention of people who've made a handful of edits has
declined substantially since 2005, even though new users still show up
at the same rate.
On Sun,
*A letter in support of the Community Fellowship program, from past,
current, and prospective Fellows:*
*
The WMF has expanded profoundly over the past decade, and especially in the
last few years. Recently initiatives to streamline and focus the WMF have
been undertaken; while these efforts are
A letter in support of the Community Fellowship program from past,
current, and prospective Fellows,
The WMF has expanded profoundly over the past decade, and especially
in the last few years. Recently initiatives to streamline and focus
the WMF have been undertaken; while these efforts are
In my opinion, the value of fellowships in my opinion is huge, and I feel that
ceasing to support projects like the Teahouse would be a real shame. That said,
I do feel there are other ways that individual editors could get the support
they need to work on critical projects. As long as this
One obvious possibility for support is the chapters and the thematic
organizations; even if the WMF continues these fellowships as it
should, the other bodies in the movement should supplement them--it is
good to have more than one source of funds and more than one body
deciding on requests. But
This proposal reminds me of management buyout, which Wikipedia defines as
form of acquisition where a company's existing managers acquire a large
part or all of the company from either the parent company or from the
private owners.
There always been ambiguity to the roles of WMF - does it have
Theo10011 wrote:
Sue Gardner started working on this document on Meta a couple of weeks ago
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner/Narrowing_focus
Well, there's your problem. You're reading the talk page! You want the
subject-space page, of course:
MZMcBride wrote:
Theo10011 wrote:
Sue Gardner started working on this document on Meta a couple of weeks ago
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner/Narrowing_focus
Well, there's your problem. You're reading the talk page! You want the
subject-space page, of course:
Narrowing the focus... target locked on Wikipedia... hunf sad... very sad.
Thanks board...
On 18 October 2012 19:07, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
Theo10011 wrote:
Sue Gardner started working on this document on Meta a couple of weeks
ago
-
23 matches
Mail list logo
