Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

[effe iets anders]

Wow. That was a long read. Some very interesting points, I hope you will
forgive me if I ignore most.

I do want to stress a few things. There is a difference between the Free
Content Movement, the Group of People who Use Wiki's and the Wikimedia
Movement. Within the Free Content Movement, which is indeed very old,
Wikimedia is a leader. The Wikimedia movement is much more narrow.

I would love to see some ideas to define the free content movement a bit
better - I guess that is more or less what you were working to. I would not
like us to confuse people even further by mixing up names (Wikipedia,
Wikimedia, MediaWiki), so lets make that Wiki- and media-neutral. I think
there are already works in that direction (I think something like Free
Culture Defined), and it would probably make most sense to work in that
direction - with them, dont re-invent the wheel.

When it comes to Wiki's being used for good goals, I don't see Wiki's as
special, sorry. Wiki's are a tool, not determining anything. I would be
totally fine if Wikiversity would decide next month to start using Moodle
instead of MediaWiki, and still be Wikimedia project. Maybe collaborative
authoring is a shared thing, but not even that is something that is the same
everywhere in Wikimedia, let alone in Free Culture/Content. I don't see much
use for defining a movement along that criterium.

Then finally, there is the very important question of how to stimulate
innovation. I have been bothered by this as well the past few years, and I
have as well been wondering why we are so extremely conservative. Why dont
we like new and fresh ideas, why do we want to keep everything the same? Not
only with software improvements, but also with new projects. Yes, I do agree
here and I would love to see the incubator expand in a way - and also allow
totally new content types to experiment. There is one disadvantage though:
companies have developed around that already (like Wikia) and we don't
currently have the infrastructure and support they can offer to new
projects. We dont have the staff to help new communities form. Maybe we
should, maybe we should leave it with those commercial parties. In any case
the current way is bad for our movement in the long term. And I mean our
movement in the narrow sense of the word.

Best regards,
Lodewijk

Am 14. Juli 2011 19:06:47 UTC+2 schrieb Thomas Morton <
morton.tho...@googlemail.com>:

> Good :) I'm glad I am reading your ideas right.
>
>
> > As for the name-- this looks like a job for experts.
>
>
> Perhaps - though with that said when I am programming it is often my
> only-slightly-technically minded work colleages who come up with ideas for
> the most effective solution.
>
> We could at least brainstorm some ideas?
>
> Tom
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Living Person Task Force: Phase Two

[effe iets anders]

of course especially considering the TF members' home wiki's are only
enwikipedia and dewikipedia, which are of course big wiki's but,
doesn't help you spreading the message. Perhaps it would be helpful
for the accepting of any outcomes if you tried more actively to reach
out to other communities. For example, by asking the translation team
to translate it, by posting your message yourself on the numerous
village pumps and ask people there to translate it as well etc. It
also might increase the number of ongoing discussions on the
strategywiki, which is currently quite limited (the only related
discussions I could find up to now are IRC-meetings and a few threads
on talkpages not linked from the main project page directly?)

anyway, I hope this can be turned around, and that after all more
people with different angles can cooperate and for example help ensure
that smaller wiki's wont perish from hard to make standards which
might make sense for dewiki and enwiki. (I'm happy to see there's a
SWMT-member though, but still better to involve more people I think)

Best,

Lodewijk

2010/4/11 effe iets anders :
> yes, that is what i was afraid for already :) only enwikipedia and
> meta, practically...
>
> 2010/4/10 Keegan Peterzell :
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:37 AM, effe iets anders 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ok, I pasted this in the Dutch village pump of wikipedia, because I
>>> dont have currently the feeling that this is really a subject that is
>>> living with wikipedians, although they would care about it.
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest that something similar is done in other VP's,
>>> considering the huge impact this might have on projects. Just
>>> foundation-l wouldn't give you the credibility that you will need to
>>> have enough support I think.
>>>
>>> Lodewijk
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, I posted to meta, the en.wp Village Pump, and wikien-l.  If others
>> could also help post in their native language wikis, that'd be tremendous.
>>  Much appreciated, Lodewijk.
>> --
>> ~Keegan
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>>
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Living Person Task Force: Phase Two

[effe iets anders]

yes, that is what i was afraid for already :) only enwikipedia and
meta, practically...

2010/4/10 Keegan Peterzell :
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 4:37 AM, effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>>
>> ok, I pasted this in the Dutch village pump of wikipedia, because I
>> dont have currently the feeling that this is really a subject that is
>> living with wikipedians, although they would care about it.
>>
>> I would like to suggest that something similar is done in other VP's,
>> considering the huge impact this might have on projects. Just
>> foundation-l wouldn't give you the credibility that you will need to
>> have enough support I think.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>
> Thanks, I posted to meta, the en.wp Village Pump, and wikien-l.  If others
> could also help post in their native language wikis, that'd be tremendous.
>  Much appreciated, Lodewijk.
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Living Person Task Force: Phase Two

[effe iets anders]

ok, I pasted this in the Dutch village pump of wikipedia, because I
dont have currently the feeling that this is really a subject that is
living with wikipedians, although they would care about it.

I would like to suggest that something similar is done in other VP's,
considering the huge impact this might have on projects. Just
foundation-l wouldn't give you the credibility that you will need to
have enough support I think.

Lodewijk

2010/4/9 Keegan Peterzell :
> Hello, Wikimedians.
>
> This weekend I plan on finalizing the timeline for phase two of the Living
> Person Task Force: a community findings recommendation.
>
> What we are interested in is people from all size wikis participating in
> discussing common interests and problems on interpersonal and intrapersonal
> interaction relating to Wikimedia projects.  This includes statistics
> gathering, examination of how projects handle OTRS complaints/issues, image
> use, quotation use, and sourcing.  It is very important that we get
> participation in these areas, if anything just to received feedback on the
> wiki.  I have subpages set up for these discussion on the Strategy site, <
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People>.
>
> In six to eight weeks we'd like to develop recommendations from the Task
> Force that are more in-depth than the proposed recommendations to be passed
> by the Board this month, to assist in developing projects identify and set
> up structures for the issues that come with societies.
>
> If you have experience dealing with living people on any of our wikis, or if
> you have ideas on how policies can be established/improved, please
> participate in the discussions so that we can adequately asses the projects
> as a whole.
>
> Thanks for your time, see you on the wiki!
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Is "Wiktionary" copyright?

[effe iets anders]

I assume you are referring to the term trademarked rather than copyrighted.
I suggest you contact Mike Godwin directly with this kind of questions, he
is handling those.

With kind regards,

Lodewijk

2010/3/29 Andrew Turvey 

> Is the term "Wiktionary" copyrighted? I only ask because the OpenDemocracy
> website has recently started a "Dictionary of Ethical Politics
> "wikitionary""
>
> http://resurgence.opendemocracy.net/index.php/Main_Page
>
> If it is copyrighted, you may want to say something to them, or else it
> will end up like the "hoover" - a generic term usable by anyone.
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Building up the reserves

[effe iets anders]

hm, wouldn't that be more a question that would suit more the board? It
seems a rather strategic one.

Lodewijk

2010/3/4 Geoffrey Plourde 

> Veronique, what would be the maximum we'd want to go with a reserve fund. I
> know that with Army Emergency Relief for example, they get dinged by Charity
> Navigator for having massive reserves of money. What do you think the
> maximum would be for Wikimedia?
>
>
>
>
> 
> From: Veronique Kessler 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
> Cc: effeietsand...@gmail.com
> Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 6:41:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Building up the reserves
>
> Hi,
>
> The question of what is the right reserve amount is a common one.  I've
> hear of ranges from 0 to 3 months to 3 years.  I agree that one year is
> a good measure and that could be increased or decreased depending on a
> variety of circumstances both internal and external.   Many non-profits
> may have a smaller than optimal reserve because they simply don't have
> more funds to keep in a reserve. We are quite fortunate to have the
> amount of reserves that we do.As we have operated over the last few
> years with a single main fundraiser, our revenue tends to peak over a 4
> month period while we have expenses all year.  Right after a fundraiser,
> we have more reserves than we do right before the fundraiser begins
> because we have months of the year where there is little revenue but
> expenses are about the same.
>
> Veronique
>
>
>
> Andrew Gray wrote:
> > On 3 March 2010 13:35, effe iets anders 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I assume you do realize that this 12.5M is /after/ the fundraiser, hence
> >> including the huge amount of donations that has been raised?
> >>
> >
> > ...as, indeed, was last December's glut.
> >
> > Looking at both mid-year and end-year reports, the cashflow status
> > becomes clearer:
> >
> > Assets (cash) versus monthly running costs (estimated)
> >
> > mid-2007 - - - - - $1m
> > end-2007 - - - - - $2.3m - - - - - $0.21m - - - - - 11 mos.
> > mid-2008 - - - - - $3m - - - - - ($0.32m) - - - - - 9 mos.
> > end-2008 - - - - - $6.7m - - - - - $0.43m - - - - - 15 mos.
> > mid-2009 - - - - - $6.2m - - - - - ($0.54m) - - - - - 11 mos.
> > end-2009 - - - - - $12.5m - - - - - $0.65m - - - - - 19 mos.
> >
> > Reserves jump dramatically each year-end report, but then idle until
> > the next fundraiser - as running costs increase roughly linearly,
> > though, the average number of months funding in reserve seesaws.
> >
> > I don't know what's considered a normal margin to have - I'd presume
> > around a year or so is considered quite good - but hopefully someone
> > more au fait with standard practice in the field could enlighten us.
> >
> >
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Building up the reserves

[effe iets anders]

I assume you do realize that this 12.5M is /after/ the fundraiser, hence
including the huge amount of donations that has been raised?

-- eia

2010/3/2 Gregory Kohs 

> The recent 6-month financial report indicates at the end of 2008,
> there was $6.67 million sitting in a savings account. At the end of
> 2009, it's $12.56 million. Do individual contributors and
> organizations who are donating to the Wikimedia Foundation realize
> that nearly $6 million of last year's funds were simply put into the
> bank?  Do you think donors think this is an important mission, to
> build up the savings account?
>
> --
> Gregory Kohs
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hour for Thursday, February 25

[effe iets anders]

what about having (for once) office hour with one or two board members?
Perhaps the community selected members? I can imagine it would be
interesting to have a chat about what the board is currently doing and up
to.

-- Lodewijk

2010/2/25 Huib! 

> Thomas Dalton schreef:
> > On 25 February 2010 10:02, Huib!  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> It could also be a idea to ask Danese Cooper to come by on IRC for a
> >> hour. But I would like it when Tim Starling would come by also... Yes he
> >> is always on IRC but almost always busy :)
> >>
> >
> > Give Danese a chance to settle in first! She hasn't had a chance to
> > learn the answers yet.
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > 
> >
> >
> > Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
> > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
> > Versie: 9.0.733 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/2709 - datum van uitgifte:
> 02/25/10 08:34:00
> >
> >
> Meeting the community is also a way to settle in.
>
> --
> Huib Laurens
>
>
> Http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/user:Abigor
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 10th birthday edit drive?

[effe iets anders]

I am not sure what the planning of the usability initiative is, but it would
be an ideal moment to publicly launch a wysiwyg editor or something and
indeed ask people to "try again" :)

Wikipedia is entering it's second decade in style - come and join us,
Wikipedia is now also editable by mortal human non-nerds!

-- Lodewijk

2010/2/8 Ziko van Dijk 

> Amazing idea, Philippe! Additionally to some big things (Hagia Sophia?
> the Red Square?): small Wikipedia logo stickers to put on a number of
> buildings etc. in your town. (On the other hand, some people could
> consider that a kind of environment unfriendly spamming.)
>
> The 10th anniversay will be a kind of looking back, also remembering
> those who have left us on the way. Some of them we are happy to be rid
> of, but others - maybe the anniversay is a good occasion to direct us
> to people who once tried to edit but were beaten away. Couldn't we ask
> them to give Wikipedia a second chance?
>
> Ziko
>
> 2010/2/8 Philippe Beaudette :
>
> > Can you imagine, finding places that have WP articles and projecting
> > the logo globe on them?
> >
> > That would be an amazing public visibility thing.  In SF alone, for
> > instance, Grace Cathedral, Coit Tower, the Transamerica Pyramid
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] open wikis for chapters....?

[effe iets anders]

what will be the goal of the website? Answers should depend on that.
The question whether "open editing" is a good thing or not, is not an
absolute question, but depends on what you want to reach etc. First
get consensus on that, then find the model best suited for that.

-- eia

2009/12/12 private musings :
> G'day all,
> over on the wikimedia au mailing list, we've been having a discussion about
> whether or not our 'official wiki' should be able to be edited by more than
> just the current financial members (I think we've got around 30 - 50 members
> at the mo) ( see
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaau-l/2009-December/002745.htmlfor
> the thread, and it sort of gets just a little bit heated)
> I thought I'd flick this list a note because the tensions between the
> foundation's aims and this more pragmatic decision have been discussed. What
> I'd like to ask this list's members is whether or not you agree that open
> editing is a good thing, and as many pages as possible on a chapter's wiki
> should be open to as many folk as possible?
> Obviously there are important factors to keep in mind in making these
> decisions, but I feel it would be useful for others not quite so connected
> to 'WMAU', but with a close connection to WMF in general, if they have a
> moment, to review our thread, and offer feedback and ideas as to whether
> we're doing it right, or (as I feel) we really should open up the wiki a bit
> more :-)
> best,
> Peter,
> PM.
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Status of 2009 Fundraiser Survey

[effe iets anders]

I'm sorry, but at least in your e-mail you mainly make a lot of
statements that I can imagine are worded in such a way that they don't
really ask for a reply, and one rethorical question. So if you want
information, I suggest you try to put your questions down a little
more constructively and maybe consider asking the right people
directly.

eia

2009/12/9 Gregory Kohs :
> Still no reply here, nor on the Meta Wikimedia page?  It's Wednesday.
> That was Friday.  Perhaps the "official" response is "no comment", or
> maybe Rand Montoya is on vacation?
>
> Gregory Kohs
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Gregory Kohs  wrote:
>> I am wondering if someone at the WMF (perhaps specifically Rand
>> Montoya) could give us an update on the status of the 2009 Fundraiser
>> Survey.  I inquired about this at the appropriate Talk page, but over
>> two weeks have passed without any reply:
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fundraising_2009/Survey&diff=1724334&oldid=1585375
>>
>> Personally, I applied about four or five hours of my time working on
>> the sampling design and questionnaire content and construction for
>> this effort.  I realize that it is beyond hope that this will have
>> fielded before most of this year's fundraising efforts have been
>> executed (which is a shame, considering the "hurry up" timeline that
>> was in place back in July 2009), but now I wonder -- will this ever be
>> fielded?  My impression is that an inordinate amount of time was
>> dedicated to translating the survey into at least a handful of world
>> languages, which I advised against, being that I knew it was a huge
>> challenge to meet translation and proofreading needs before the annual
>> fundraiser commenced.
>>
>> I hope it is realistic to at least field this survey in the Spring of
>> 2010, so that its results may be analyzed and contribute to
>> modifications (both tactical and strategic) for the 2010 fundraiser.
>>
>> Gregory Kohs
>>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite Newbees

[effe iets anders]

could you perhaps point to that general WMF policy? Or do you mean you would
like to see such a policy, but there is none yet?

Lodewijk

2009/12/3 Milos Rancic 

> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > Although I can understand that there are genuine reasons why the "anti
> > organisational account" rule is in place, can I mention that having an
> > organisational account is one of the main things that GLAM institutions
> have
> > asked from us. If a museum wants to upload their own photographs to
> Commons
> > (something which I think we all would love to support) they have
> requested
> > that they be able to upload those images under their own organisational
> > username. This in itself doesn't necessarily mean we should change our
> > policies, but it's just an example of a good outcome that changing our
> flat
> > ban on organisational accounts would achieve.
>
> Then they should sign contracts with WMF. OR: They should send their
> identification to WMF staff and WMF should make clear that those accounts
> are
> exceptions from the general policy.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting update

[effe iets anders]

Hi Michael,

thanks a lot for sharing this short overview with us. I look forward
to more extensive minutes of course and hope they will be published
not too long from now - especially considering the strategic process
that is going on.

You mentioned the nominating committee and their imput. I'm glad that
this kind of things is constantly under review and consideration. Is
this input public, or otherwise at least to the chapters? (who will
need to get started with the chapter selected board seats in the next
months as well) That way community members and chapters can think with
the nominating committee and give perhaps some additional suggestions.

With kind regards,

Lodewijk

2009/11/30 Michael Snow :
> With our last board meeting falling a little later in the year than
> usual, and coming close to holidays, I'm a little late in giving this
> brief report on what happened. As you know, the board approved the
> audited financial statements for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, and those
> were posted on the Wikimedia Foundation website a couple weeks ago.
>
> As the organization has gotten settled in San Francisco, this has become
> a smoother process than in years past. It's not just that we're on solid
> financial ground (that's good, though even in the past we haven't been
> in immediate danger financially), but also as we've established the
> necessary infrastructure, we're better at tracking our finances and
> addressing issues that may need to be resolved in the course of an
> audit. The stress level around the audit is low enough now that although
> I had to miss the audit committee conference call (where I normally
> participate as an observer), I still had confidence that Veronique and
> Stu and everyone else would bring it to a successful conclusion. (That's
> my personal stress level I speak of, I won't claim there's no stress
> involved for Veronique.) Thanks to Veronique and her team, as well as
> the auditors, for their work. Thanks also to the volunteers on the audit
> committee for their service. One other thing the board reviewed out of
> the committee's work was a risks analysis that is being put together of
> the top risks and mitigation strategies for addressing them, which will
> become part of the strategic planning process.
>
> Speaking of which, strategic planning was the biggest single item on our
> agenda, and tended to be a thread running throughout the rest of the
> meeting as well. With help from the Bridgespan team, we worked through
> some preliminary strategy questions to discuss priorities and setting
> goals. We don't have concrete results from that to share, in part
> because the overall process is still in an early stage, but it was a
> good exercise for us in thinking on a strategic level and preparing for
> the more challenging decisions ahead. One thing that did come out of it
> is that we reviewed the guidance that the nominating committee was given
> in the search to fill the one remaining vacancy on the board, and
> provided some additional input for them as a result.
>
> One note I would add is the valuable contributions of the newer members
> of the board in bringing a more complete set of views to the group. SJ
> and Arne many of you know, and their emphasis on the health and
> potential of the community and chapters was important. I also really
> appreciated what Matt Halprin had to offer, especially in two areas:
> One, his capacity for strategic thinking and helping to keep us focused
> on strategy issues instead of drifting off-track, and two, his
> experience with other nonprofit boards and their practices was a good
> perspective to add. Their strengths help compensate for the fact that
> Jimmy wasn't able to attend the meeting, and I anticipate they will make
> us a good working group through the strategic planning process.
>
> The board also conducted a sort of general review and evaluation, not
> just of the financial situation but the state of the organization and
> the work being done by Sue and the staff. We think Sue is great as our
> Executive Director and has done a terrific job getting the organization
> to this point, where we're healthy and have the space to develop our
> capacity for achievement in the years ahead. And I can't say enough
> about the work the staff are doing, so I'll just share this one
> anecdote. Since the board meeting overlapped with the first week of the
> fundraiser, it's fortunate that we have the new office where there's
> more than one meeting room, otherwise I don't know where the board would
> have met. That's because the fundraising team would spend all day
> working together in one of the larger meeting rooms. This would involve
> as many as 6-8 people, and you wouldn't know that they eat or take
> breaks from casual observation, although we did make sure they at least
> got the leftover pizza from our lunch at one point. They've worked hard
> to keep the fundraiser operational, not to mention considering a lot of
> fee

Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

[effe iets anders]

There are two possible discussions:

1) a discussion about the legal requirements - please leave this to
the legal experts. I'm confident that Mike Godwin keeps an eye onto
it, and if he doesn't you could solicit the advice of a legal expert,
and bring that advice to him or the WMF ED/board.
2) a discussion on whether we want to make Wikimedia better accessible
to people having significant problems with a category of content. -
that discussion be held here, if the necessary data is found (as laid
out in a previous email).

best, eia

2009/11/18 Delirium :
> George Herbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>>> So state it as much as you want.  The WMF is a publisher.  Under
>>> Section 230 of the CDA it most likely won't be treated as a publisher,
>>> but that doesn't mean it isn't a publisher.
>>>
>>
>> The section 230 that would seem to matter here?
>>
>> The WMF has all sorts of roles, depending on who you are, how you look
>> at it, and what your perspective is (and what day of the month it is,
>> etc).  Referring to legal issues, one has to remain domain specific
>> when using specific terms in a legal sense.
>>
>
> It's also quite unsettled what Section 230 protections consist of to
> begin with. Some U.S. courts have applied them *extremely* broadly. One
> still-current Circuit Court precedent, which is binding in the distrct
> Wikimedia servers are located, is _Batzel v. Smith_ (9th Circuit, 2003),
> which holds that a blogger who reposts material emailed to him, even
> though he chooses which emails to republish, is entitled to Section 230
> protection by virtue of the mere fact that the material he publishes
> originates ultimately with his "users", and is not something he
> personally authored. It's hard to imagine any Wikimedia Foundation
> activity w.r.t. Wikipedia that doesn't meet at least the _Batzel_
> standard, apart from Wikimedia Foundation employees literally inserting
> original content into Wikipedia articles while on the clock. If the
> ultimate source of the content is elsewhere, regardless of what
> editorial or publishing decisions are made in the middle, it's
> Section-230-protected under _Batzel_. Of course, _Batzel_ might be wrong
> and overturned in the future, which is the risk of relying too much on
> law in this as-yet-unsettled area...
>
> -Mark
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

[effe iets anders]

Even though I do agree to some extent with you, Andrew, I would like
to make a remark.

You correctly state that the cultural sensibilities differ over the
world on this topic. However, this does not excuse for calling the
sensibilities "irrational" and "lacking in substance" (inconsistent is
fair enough). Clearly, you belong to the group of people who do not
have a problem at all with these images, and PM belongs to the group
of people that has huge problems with them. The mere fact that you two
disagree should not lead to the conclusion we should not think about a
way of taking away the problem for the people in side of the spectrum
where PM is located.

I think you could lay a comparison between people having significant
problems with these images and therefore are not able (or less able)
to access Wikipedia with people who have technical issues because they
do not want to download a piece of propitiatory software. We care a
lot about the latter group, why abolish even the idea of caring about
the first? Because we do not belong to it?

Some people do indeed think that ancient pornography should be hidden
as well by the way, although I do get your point. Sometimes there is
clearly an educational purpuse involved, and the images add value.

Now let it be clear I do not vouch at all for getting rid of the
images, or any free content. However, if that would suit a significant
group of people, we could consider to make them a little less
prominently accessible. Please speak up if the following procedure
would make no sense at all to you:

0) think about whether we want (if it exists) to help reduce this
group of people with siginificant problems in the first place.
1) research / find research on how large the group of people is that
have significant problems with this issue (I define significant here
as "having the impact that because of this, they will visit Wikipedia
less frequently or not at all")
2) consider which approaches would be possible
3) research which of these approached would be help to decrease the
group of people having significant problems with this issue
4) consider whether this has any negative impact for the people not
having these significant problems
5) balance these advantages/disadvantages

lets not jump to 5) immediately.

To get to the original question of PM, I am not sure actually whether
the advisory board would have people on it who would be helpful on
this specific topic. Angela, could you advise on this?

Perhaps this topic could, however, better be approached through the
often named Strategy Process. Philippe, do you have a suggestion how
this can be incorporated?

Thanks,

Lodewijk

2009/11/17 Andrew Garrett :
>
> On 16/11/2009, at 1:04 AM, private musings wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Wikipedia Review, 'tarantino' pointed out that on WMF projects,
>> self-identified minors (in this case User:Juliancolton) are involved
>> in
>> routine maintenance stuff around sexually explicit images reasonably
>> describable as porn (one example is 'Masturbating Amy.jpg').
>>
>> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27358&st=0&p=204846&#entry204846
>>
>> I think this is wrong on a number of levels - and I'd like to see
>> better
>> governance from the foundation in this area - I really feel that we
>> need to
>> talk about some child protection measures in some way - they're
>> overdue.
>>
>> I'd really like to see the advisory board take a look at this issue
>> - is
>> there a formal way of suggesting or requesting their thoughts, or
>> could I
>> just ask here for a board member or community member with the advisory
>> board's ear to raise this with them.
>
> You just won't give up this topic, will you?
>
> I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's somehow inappropriate
> for minors to be viewing or working on images depicting human nudity
> and sexuality. Cultural sensibilities on this matter are inconsistent,
> irrational and entirely lacking in substance.
>
> I'm also unsure how you propose to define "sexually explicit". The
> definitions under law are elaborate, attempting to make distinctions
> that would be irrelevant to any negative impact on children, if one
> existed. Are images of the statue of David, the Mannekin Pis or the
> Ecstacy of Theresa deserving of such restrictions? What about the
> detailed frescoes of sexual acts displayed in brothels and living
> rooms in ancient Pompeii and Herculaneum? How are those distinct from
> the image you've used as an example, and how is that distinction
> relevant to whatever supposed harm you are claiming to children?
>
> If it is truly inappropriate or harmful for children to be working on
> such images, then those children should be supervised in their
> internet access, or have gained the trust of their parents to use the
> internet within whatever limits those parents (or, indeed, the minor)
> believe is appropriate.
>
> It is absolutely not the job of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the
> Wikimedia community, to supervi

Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?

[effe iets anders]

2009/11/2 Thomas Dalton 

>
>
>
> I'm happy arguing about this. No-one is forcing you to do so. If you
> want to start another thread about the colour of the sky, go right
> ahead.
>
> Why can't people on this list learn how to ignore threads? It is very
> easy to do. You just don't click on them when they appear in your
> inbox. I'm not interested in everything that is discussed on this
> list, but I don't complain about other people discussing it; I just
> ignore it.
>
> Why can't people learn when a discussion is irritating other people, why
can't people learn which discussions are most useful to have, why can't
people learn that they might frustrate the very reason for existance of this
list? Why can't people learn to realize when to shut up?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] How to make a puzzle globe

[effe iets anders]

is this the same as the one in the Office?

2009/11/1 William Pietri 

> David Gerard wrote:
> >
> http://www.externaute.net/la-globe-en-puzzle-de-wikipedia-en-realite-3d/1071
> >
>
> English-speakers may wish to consult the original source, the blog of
> the globe-makers, here:
>
> http://www.becausewecan.org/Wiki_globe
>
> There are more photos and some explanatory text.
>
>
> Those in the SF area with an interest in this kind of thing should keep
> an eye on their blog for their occasional open houses. E.g.:
>
> http://www.becausewecan.org/october09_eatfoodtalkshop
>
> Not only do you get to see the shop and in-progress projects, but a very
> interesting collection of makers turn up there. Last I visited, I met
> one couple who built a 3D printer that uses table sugar as the working
> medium, and got a great under-the-hood tour of a home-converted electric
> car. Very inspiring.
>
> William
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?

[effe iets anders]

I think the community should be and is being treated as a majority
shareholder, even better! Office IT support is a typical thing that the
community is not affected by AT ALL. So I am not surprised no announcement
is being given on foundation-l about this. If any public list would be
relevant, it would be wikitech-l, but even there it would be doubtful. (not
even to speak about privacy issues)

We should get used to a situation where the foundation grows, and that more
hirings/firings (or farewells for other reasons) are going to take place
then up to now. It would simply not be practical to announce them all. I do
expect the foundation to announce community-relevant positions such as the
volunteer coordinator, CsomethingO's, board positions and other functions
that relate to the community more directly. Financial controllers, office
supports, personal assistants etc are just not relevant to the community,
and a change on the relevant webpages and maybe a periodic (anonymized?)
overview on monthly reports would make more sense. (2 hirings last month,
and three people left the foundation for example)

Lodewijk

2009/10/30 Nathan 

> Why would you even ask that question, let alone expect an answer? Last
> I checked, no Wikimedian also carried the title of "majority
> shareholder" or anything close. You're not entitled to sordid details
> of personnel management. Try to remember that the Wikimedia Foundation
> is a business, and needs to operate with more professionalism than
> "announce everything announce often."
>
>
> Nathan
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Cross-wiki defective translations in Korean

[effe iets anders]

do you mean poor as in "bad quality, grammar is all wrong" or as in "he
tells a totally different thing, on purpose perhaps"?

-- Lodewijk

2009/10/11 Woojin Kim 

> First, I apologize if I sent wrong email list.
>
> I'd like to report wrong/defective translations has been being created in
> Korean on MetaWiki and StrategyWiki. I suspect these poor translations is
> made by PauloHelene and his socks and/or IPs. (Some of IPs are used in Ajou
> University . Also you can
> see
> his various IP address
> here<
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PauloHelene&action=history
> >).
> They made a lot of bad translations so it is impossible to fix them in
> short
> time.
>
> And he is showing abusive behaivours in Wikitravel Shared. and his request
> for translator right in translatewiki.net has been denied. (Archived
> requests for translator
> rights
> Section
> 126). Korean Wikipedia also discussed several time
> (here<
> http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%9C%84%ED%82%A4%EB%B0%B1%EA%B3%BC:%EC%82%AC%EB%9E%91%EB%B0%A9/2009%EB%85%84_%EC%A0%9C21%EC%A3%BC#.EB.8F.84.EC.99.80.EC.A3.BC.EC.84.B8.EC.9A.94
> .>
> and
> here<
> http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%9C%84%ED%82%A4%EB%B0%B1%EA%B3%BC:%EC%82%AC%EB%9E%91%EB%B0%A9/2009%EB%85%84_%EC%A0%9C39%EC%A3%BC#PauloHelene_.EA.B4.80.EB.A0.A8_.EB.AC.B8.EC.A0.9C
> >)
> for his poor translations but there is no fundamental solution to prevent
> him from editing.
>
> Please take actions to prevent him from abusing. Some advices are also
> welcome. Thank you.
>
> --
> 김우진
> Woojin Kim
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] "Wikipedia" localization

[effe iets anders]

Just as a sidenote, /if/ you localize, the English version of the namespaces
will always redirect. For example, File:Example.ogg redirects in the dutch
wikipedia to Bestand:Example.ogg .
Best,

Lodewijk

2009/10/4 David Gerard 

> 2009/10/4 Geoffrey Plourde :
>
> > The issue I see is that if a computer doesn't have japanese character
> support, ja-wp would be hard to navigate.
>
>
> o_0 If a computer doesn't have Japanese character support, the user is
> extremely unlikely to get much use out of ja:wp anyway.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

[effe iets anders]

personally, i just gave up. This won't become a useful list any more as it
once was.
eia

2009/10/1 Anthony 

> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l hasn't had any edits
> in a couple weeks now.  Have we decided this isn't such a big problem after
> all?  Have we given up?  Just waiting a few months for someone to post a
> complaint so we can repeat this all over again?  Austin?  Ryan?  Anyone?
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

[effe iets anders]

sure it would, and maybe it would be an improvement. But the mere fact that
the log is there, I don't see as a problem. Also, realize that the average
newbee will not even look at the contributions page...

2009/9/30 Amir E. Aharoni 

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 17:22, effe iets anders
>  wrote:
> > Of course Google has this kind of logs. However, Google is just not
> > transparant about it.
>
> Being transparent is nice and important, but being it is just as
> important to be nice. "Filter log" is just as correct and transparent
> as "abuse log", but doesn't make a newbie feel that he's accused of
> abuse.
>
> --
> אמיר אלישע אהרוני
> Amir Elisha Aharoni
>
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>
> "We're living in pieces,
>  I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Consensus on Meta for suspecting every volunteer of abuse ?

[effe iets anders]

Of course Google has this kind of logs. However, Google is just not
transparant about it.

eia

2009/9/30 Amir E. Aharoni 

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 16:00, Teofilo  wrote:
> > Now go to meta.wikimedia.org (1), create a new account there and click
> > on your "My contributions" link. And see what you see on the top line
> > of  Special:Contributions : "Abuse Log".
>
> Thanks for bringing this up.
>
> On the English Wikipedia it is called "filter log", which is indeed much
> better.
>
> --
> אמיר אלישע אהרוני
> Amir Elisha Aharoni
>
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
>
> "We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Office hours

[effe iets anders]

on a friday? :S

2009/9/29 Thomas Dalton 

> 2009/9/29 effe iets anders :
> > I think having the thursday meeting one or two more hours later would
> work
> > fine for Europe, so if that works also better for Australia... Not sure
> > about the Friday one, although the next day is weekend. 2130 UTC sounds
> like
> > a good time though.
>
> 2130 UTC sounds a little late to me if we want Europeans there. We're
> on daylight saving time for another month (ish), so in Western Europe,
> that is 2330, finishing at 0030. That's pretty late.
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Office hours

[effe iets anders]

I think having the thursday meeting one or two more hours later would work
fine for Europe, so if that works also better for Australia... Not sure
about the Friday one, although the next day is weekend. 2130 UTC sounds like
a good time though.

2009/9/29 Angela 

> > 1) Have the Friday office hours one hour earlier (from 21:30-22:30 UTC)
> > 2) Have the Thursday office hours one hour later (from 17:00-18:00 UTC)
> > 3) Keep two sets of office hours the same, we cannot please everyone
> > possible!
>
> If you make the Friday one earlier, it becomes more inaccessible to
> people in Asia and Western Australia who will likely be sleeping
> through the Thursday one.
>
> What about making both of them a couple of hours later?
>
> Angela
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] REMINDER: Wikimedia Staff office hours

[effe iets anders]

Thanks for considering Europeans too. However, isn't something like
1800/1900 UTC not more convenient? (since at 1600 UTC, especially during
winter, lots of people will be at work/school?) I guess that also works
better for staff, with regards to getting up early ;-)

Best,

Lodewijk



2009/9/25 Cary Bass 

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Just a reminder about today's office hours with Sue Gardner.  Just as a
> note, we're planning alternating the Friday 22:30 UTC office hours with
> Thursday 16:00 UTC, which is much easier on our European participants.
>
> Cary
>
> - 
>
> As a result of the success of the Strategy planning office hours and the
> recent "meet the board" presentation on the #wikimedia channel on IRC,
> we've decided to do regular office hours featuring a Wikimedia
> Foundation staff member.
>
> And to kick things off, this Friday, September 25, 2009, between 15:30
> and 16:30 PDT (UTC 22:30 to 23:30), Sue Gardner, the Wikimedia
> Foundation's Executive Director, will be online to answer your questions
> and talk about her role in the Foundation and plans for the future.
>
> The IRC channel that will be hosting Sue's conversation, and all future
> WMF staff office hours, will be #wikimedia-office on the Freenode
> network.  If you do not have an IRC client, you can always access
> Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/, typing in the
> nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as the channel.
> You may be prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine.
>
> - --
> Cary Bass
> Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkq9ERgACgkQyQg4JSymDYk2WgCglG8tN6/MFEMRMDjTfeUN4CVi
> dWIAoMRnLCqxQsaPXVy+BQ93GaRS/ut0
> =Lsrp
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009-

[effe iets anders]

can someone kill this thread? Thanks.

2009/9/13 Thomas Dalton 

> 2009/9/13 Austin Hair :
> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Thomas Dalton 
> wrote:
> >>> Wow, that's... pretty offensive, actually.
> >>
> >> If you are offended by statements of fact, that is your problem.
> >
> > I think it's fairly clear that I dispute the factualness of your
> statement.
>
> You take offence when people say something you deem to be mistaken? Or
> are you suggesting I knew what I said was untrue and said it to be
> intentionally malicious?
>
> >> Last time I checked, being a non-profit (and a charity if possible)
> >> *was* a requirement to be a Wikimedia chapter. The WMF does have
> >> experience of running a charity.
> >
> > I don't know when it was that you checked, because this has never been
> > a requirement.  In countries where there's some analog to what
> > Americans and Brits would call a non-profit, that's generally the
> > desired form, but different countries have different legal systems—WMF
> > Inc., for instance, is not a "charity" in the American sense of the
> > word—and we do now have chapters which are neither.
>
> I've looked it up, and I stand corrected - non-profit status is on the
> "guideline" page, not the "requirements" page. I knew I had seen it
> there somewhere.
>
> > That's not even the point, however.  WMF Inc. does not have experience
> > running a non-profit in, say, Brunei.  I couldn't tell you the
> > exchange rate in Brunei, much less what it costs to organize an event
> > there.  It's preposterous to assume that we can step in and throw
> > highly paid western consultants at a situation, with the poor,
> > incompetent Bruneians bowing to our superior wisdom and experience.
>
> If the WMF doesn't know what is appropriate and the local chapter
> people can be trusted to know what is appropriate (in some cases the
> local chapter may have the necessary experience and the WMF can defer
> to their expertise, but that isn't always the case), then the WMF
> needs to do the necessary research. They are responsible for what
> money that people have given them is spent on, so it falls to them to
> find out what spending is and isn't appropriate.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009-

[effe iets anders]

the main question should be whether it is worth it in that case. I.e., will
it improve the chances of the chapter becoming successful? And I believe you
are just as I am not able to make that estimate without at least some
understanding of Portuguese culture.

Lodewijk

2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton 

> 2009/9/11 Gerard Meijssen :
> > Hoi,
> > Relevant is what our aim is. Our aim is to bring the total sum of
> knowledge
> > to everyone. Now, that means that we have to be Portuguese in Portugal,
> > Dutch in the Netherlands and I leave you to be British in Britain. In the
> > end that is what we ask people to contribute to.
>
> You can't waste other people's money and then say "That's our culture"
> (and I note, nobody from Portugal seems to be making that argument).
> If you accept that, you have to accept anything.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[effe iets anders]

I think we're talking about two groups of people and thinking here:
1) a group of people who have the principle "be bold" in their coat of arms
and love to say anything that comes to mind, no matter whether that might be
rude or not.
2) the people who see discussion more as a social process which is helped by
involving more people.

At an IRL meeting, one of these two groups sets the atmosphere. Either the
bold group can discuss loudly and the "social" people feel not at home and
they leave. Either the social people are nice and are disturbed by the rude
behaviour of the bold people, and tell them to be nice or shut up.

I tend to prefer the second group, since I sincerely believe that it is
important and even crucial to allow people to discuss, and allow many people
to discuss.

By telling that people who don't like the shouting even though they have a
delete button, by saying that people should just grow a thick skin, you
clearly say that you belong to the first group, and you are not interested
enough in their opinion to change your behaviour, even though you don't even
have a clou how big that group is and who's in it. I would even go as far as
to say I find that quite asocial and rude, and strikes me in the same way as
when I go to a cafe, people spit on me and shout at me, and if I complain
about that, I'm just told that I should go home and not bother, because that
is just the way they behave in that cafe...

Lodewijk

2009/9/11 Milos Rancic 

> Fully agreed with Ray: If someone doesn't know how to use delete
> button, then such person is not quite competent to use mailing lists.
> It reminds me on criticism toward wikis: Ah, someone may change my
> edits! I don't want to use that system anymore!
>
> On 2009-09-11, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >> This is effectively the only cross-project list at the moment.  And it
> >> is the canonical place to raise certain important issues and
> >> announcements.
> >>
> >> It has become popular to disparage this list as a poor place to have
> >> serious discussions about the foundation -- and to do the disparaging
> >> in private, where it can't possible lead to consensus to change this.
> >> Let's please stop doing that, and instead fix the list and its norms,
> >> or devise replacements and alternatives, so that we can all agree on
> >> where to have open, welcoming discussions -- that are comfortable for
> >> almost everyone, including non-native English speakers; that draw
> >> input from the core audience (people who care about Foundation
> >> issues).
> >>
> >> Please don't view this as a problem that someone else must identify
> >> and cope with.  If you are reading this list, you can help fix it.
> >
> > A reminder that there's ongoing discussion on meta about what to do.
> > Please add to it!
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l
> >
> > -- phoebe
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009-

[effe iets anders]

Why should all Wikimedians have the same culture and ideas and way of
thinking as you? Why should Wikimedians who have a culture be excluded from
setting up a chapter?

Besides that I think you're paraphrasing way too much. The grant request
only suggested that this kind of costs are just costs that have to be made
to work efficiently. The chapter asked the Foundation to pay for it the
first year, so that they could focus on useful stuff. I hope they will be
able to generate these and other funds themselves from next year onwards.

Lodewijk

2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton 

> 2009/9/11 Jennifer Riggs :
> > However the word and concept of "frugality" differs significantly across
> > cultures. In my experience with many non-Western cultures, asking people
> > to bring lunch from home or spend their own money for it would not only
> > exclude participation, it would insult people. If the purpose is to
> > encourage participation and commitment to a newly forming organization,
> > it seems it would be very important not to insult people.
>
> If we were talking about meetings with people from outside the
> Wikimedia movement, I would agree with you, but I really can't see how
> it can be insulting not to provide food at a meeting of Wikimedians
> when the people attending the meeting and the people organising the
> meeting are exactly the same people. If people are only willing to set
> up a chapter if the WMF buys them lunch once a month, I don't want
> those people setting up a chapter.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[effe iets anders]

The problem becomes more serious when several people tell me that they
either unsubscribe from this list or do not dare any more to give input in
discussions because of these people (not defining anybory, but more in
general the group of people being harsh and posting a lot). That is
currently the case and a complaint I have heard several times. To me, that
means we crossed some lines which we should not have. I'm confident you have
a thick skin and can handle it all, but please realize that not everybody is
as experienced as you are, not everybody is as fluent in English and not
everybody is as bold to speak up. Some people need a somewhat more
stimulating and constructive environment for that.

-- Lodewijk

2009/9/10 Ray Saintonge 

>
> > Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:46:36 -0400
> > From: Anthony 
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
> >
> > There needs to be place for dozens of back-and-forth-over-minor-details
> > discussion.  Long detailed emails have their place, but after they are
> > posted there needs to be room for a question and answer session.
>  Limiting
> > these Q&A sessions so that each person can merely make a single comment
> and
> > then receive a single response severely limits the ability of people to
> > engage in useful discussion, and forcing people to have any back and
> forth
> > discussions off-list severely limits the usefulness of the list for
> > brainstorming and for refining ideas.
> >
> > If you want a separate list for long, well-thought-out emails, I'm fine
> with
> > that.  But we need a place for brainstorming and refining ideas. We need
> a
> > place for back-and-forth discussion.
> >
> > Am I in the minority in believing that?
> >
> >
> This issue of moderation comes up with great regularity, though not
> always about the same individuals.  Anthony and Thomas have
> well-established credentials as pains in the ass ... so too has a shot
> of penicillin.  I have frequently disagreed  with them, but even when my
> personal opinion has been that they have reached their most idiotic I
> have never sought to throttle them.  I have a much easier option: the
> delete key on my keyboard.
>
> To those who consider them trolls: Why are you feeding them with
> requests for moderation?  Has that oft repeated simple advice never had
> any effect upon you?  If you view them as part of the problem, must you
> too become a part of the problem by promoting an equally inane series of
> messages about moderation?
>
> The protection of free speech does not begin with laws on the matter,
> but with our own personal responses to what we regard as objectionable.
>
> Ec
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?

[effe iets anders]

Ok, not replying to anyone in particular, but please, can we stop this
thread? If it has ever been useful, it has lost that little bit by now I
guess. Thank you.

-- eia

2009/9/6 David Gerard 

> 2009/9/6 Anthony :
> > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> >> Too many people attribute to malice what is completely explained by
> >> fuckups.
>
> > Perhaps you should rethink this analysis.  You might be attributing
> > accusations of the latter for accusations of the former.
>
>
> I think it's pretty clear in the case of the start of this particular
> idiot thread.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Thank you!

[effe iets anders]

But could they be uploaded afterwards? (assuming the source files are still
available?)

Lodewijk

2009/9/4 Brion Vibber 

> On 9/4/09 1:01 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> > 2. On many videos, if not most, it is impossible to see the content of
> > the slides. Could videos be uploaded in higher resolution? Obvious
> > downsides: larger file size, more bandwidth required. Or maybe all
> > presenters could be encouraged to upload their presentation slides (I
> > know some already do this) so people can view along as they listen to
> > the audio of the talk.
>
> Higher-res versions would be very nice, but would have been much harder
> to get done and uploaded as quickly. :) Maybe next year, when we've got
> more of the new video upload support in place!
>
> I would definitely encourage everybody to upload slides and link them
> with the video versions; PDF slides can be uploaded directly to Commons
> and can now be viewed inline as well as downloading them.
>
> > 3. On the videos with a Q&A segment the audience often doesn't have a
> > microphone so the viewer can't hear the questions. Could more talks
> > provide the audience with a microphone? And where this isn't possible,
> > could speakers be encouraged to repeat or summarise the question for
> > the benefit of the camera?
>
> Moderators/assistants from the local team were usually pretty good about
> getting the microphones around or else reminding the speaker to repeat
> questions, but of course this gets forgotten sometimes.
>
> -- brion
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Thank you!

[effe iets anders]

re: the errors, I assume you added those to the talkpage of the files on
commons? That way someone could actually see if it can be fixed :)

thanks!

eia

2009/9/4 Bod Notbod 

> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:31 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> > - videos of all the talks
>
> As someone who is unlikely to be able to ever attend a Wikimania
> unless it comes to London I'd like to express my gratitude for all the
> effort that's gone into that. I've watched quite a few and intend to
> watch many more.
>
> There is, however, room for improvement on this front. So here's what
> I would like to see, in terms of video, from the next Wikimania:
>
> 1. Some of the videos have issues (eg, absent sound for part of the
> talk or audio track slowed down to the extent that people sound like
> orcs). It would be good if whoever uploads the video would view the
> content and try to solve such issues before making them available. If
> it's not possible to solve the issue it would be good if they could
> annotate the video (eg "sound absent until 2:48") so people are
> forewarned and can fast forward to the watchable portion.
>
> 2. On many videos, if not most, it is impossible to see the content of
> the slides. Could videos be uploaded in higher resolution? Obvious
> downsides: larger file size, more bandwidth required. Or maybe all
> presenters could be encouraged to upload their presentation slides (I
> know some already do this) so people can view along as they listen to
> the audio of the talk.
>
> 3. On the videos with a Q&A segment the audience often doesn't have a
> microphone so the viewer can't hear the questions. Could more talks
> provide the audience with a microphone? And where this isn't possible,
> could speakers be encouraged to repeat or summarise the question for
> the benefit of the camera?
>
> 4. More of an observation than a recommendation: as I've watched the
> videos most of their respective talk pages have not yet been
> contributed to (they're red links). The same can be said for their
> entries in the Wikimania schedule. I thought more people would be
> wanting to discuss the content of the talks.
>
> Despite my various gripes it's really great to have so many videos, so
> thanks to everyone involved.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files

[effe iets anders]

works fine here...

2009/9/2 Mathias Schindler 

> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Hay (Husky) wrote:
> > Around 11:46 UTC we reached 5 million files on Commons! Not quite sure
> > which file is the 5th million, but this is one of the candidates:
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kj%C3%B8benhavnsposten_28_nov_1838_side_1.jpg
>
> Does anyone else get a broken image at that url?
>
> Mathias
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Closure of projects

[effe iets anders]

2009/8/20 Gerard Meijssen 

>  if they vote that
> I will wear a tutu at Wikimania and a consensus says that I should,


one vote against! Please not...
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wiktionary logo competition makes b3ta

[effe iets anders]

arg, I did not lay that connection.. thanks for doing that and imprinting it
in my head (NOT)... :(

2009/8/14 

> Lol, Goatse!
>
> - b.
>
> Friday, August 14, 2009, 12:08:01 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> DG> Our logo competitions have landed us such excellent trademarks as the
> DG> puzzle globe, the WMF logo and the MediaWiki flower. But most entries
> DG> are an excellent demonstration of why graphic designers are paid
> DG> money.
>
> DG> This one did make the b3ta newsletter, though. Could be a very
> DG> profitable bit of visual identity for us.
>
> DG> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikty_no_text_up.png
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split

[effe iets anders]

lolz

2009/8/8 Domas Mituzas 

> Hi!
>
> >  And I have to assume that's primarily due to your
> > efforts.
> >
> > Thanks Brion. Excellent work.
>
> Yes, thank you Brion! :)
>
> Domas
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission

[effe iets anders]

I hope those procedures are fixed with a high priority. Because privacy is a
serious issue, and users are referred to the ombudsmen committee often,
assuming that is fully functional if necessary. If it is not, that means a
lot more responsibility for the WMF, the stewards etc. Are the current
members still willing to perform their tasks, are they able to? I hope this
gets fixed very fast.

Thanks,

Lodewijk

2009/7/27 Christophe Henner 

> 2009/7/27 geni :
> > 2009/7/26 effe iets anders :
> >> Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
> >> committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation
> here.
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Lodewijk
> >>
> >
> > Doesn't appear to be.
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> I'm working on it for a few days.
>
>
> By the way, this isn't the first time the Ombudsman Commission is
> "laggy". I would think that a mailing list isn't the best tool to work
> on cases.
>
> --
> Christophe
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission

[effe iets anders]

Has this issue been resolved? I think it would be quite serious if the
committee is not functioning, so would like to get some confirmation here.
Thanks.

Lodewijk

2009/7/18 Peter Jacobi 

> On dewiki there is a discussion whether the Ombudsman commission does
> fulfill its mission.
>
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Checkuser/Anfragen#Ombudskommission
>
> Some months ago there was a checkuser action which was questioned by
> some users and the Ombudsman commission was asked to investigate the
> case. The only dewiki  member of the Ombudsman commission did recuse
> himself from the case. The other members can't be reached or don't
> comment.
>
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> [[User:Pjacobi]]
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Donation Button Enhancement : Part 2

[effe iets anders]

What about changing it every hour? Then you have sufficient randomness over
time, and no flashy buttons.

-- eia

2009/7/21 Erik Moeller 

> 2009/7/20 Liam Wyatt :
> > Rotating them would seem like a more viable solution than randomised - We
> > don't want the situation where every new page in WP someone reads there
> is a
> > new/different coloured donation button where last week there was none at
> all
> > - to go from nothing to that would be almost as bad as a flashing "donate
> > here, now!" banner.
>
> Indeed, that's the reasoning behind the proposed approach. We don't
> want it to typically be changing constantly for an individual user.
> Yes, a sequential run does introduce various problematic biases.
>
> An IP-address based hack could work, but would need to take into
> account dynamic IP addresses and such, without introducing strange new
> biases of its own. We'll discuss a bit further - good ideas /
> algorithms welcome. :-)
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Commons: Service project or not?

[effe iets anders]

Hi Huib,

yes, that seems to be an accurate description of the current situation.
However, what would you /want/ it to be, and /why/ ? :)

Thanks,

eia

2009/6/16 Huib Laurens 

> Hello,
>
> I want to start with thanking Effe iets anders, this is the most neutral
> email about Commons I have seen this week, and I like the fact that
> there is a new angle to work with.
>
> I think Commons is both a service projects and a independent project,
> Commons is a free file repository and can be used in all MediaWiki site
> from version 1.13 or higher
> (source:http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Instant_Commons ), so Commons is
> providing a service for more than 10.000 sites
> (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Sites_using_MediaWiki).  Commons is also
> a service project for Newspapers, magazines, other sites or things that
> needs images under a free license.  I don't think somebody on Commons
> would mind if you call it a service project in this context.
>
> All Wikimedia project sites are build in MediaWiki so Commons provides
> them the same hosting service as the do for other MediaWiki sites, only
> the big difference is that the Foundation own the servers that host
> Commons and that the Wikimedia Foundation the only organization is that
> can use Commons for hosting non free images.
>
> When we look inside Wikimedia we have Wikipedia, Wikibooks,Wiktionary,
> Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikiversety . Wikisource and Wikimedia
> Commons. Those nine projects all have there own scope and can work
> independent from the other projects, all the projects have there own
> community, policies, rules and content. When the Foundation will stop
> the could sell those projects to nine different people and all projects
> can keep working, the don't need a other project to keep existing. So
> all those project can be seen independently within the Foundation. The
> projects that stay over like Wikimania, Incubator or meta can be seen as
> projects with the soul purpose to support the nine big projects within
> the Foundation, Incubator can not work without other projects, Meta
> needs other projects to keep working also. Commons can go on with his
> own community, so does Wikipedia or Wikinews ect ect.
>
> So we should see Commons as a inpendend project created for giving
> MediaWiki sites a free file repository, but optimized for giving extra
> service for Wikimedia projects.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Huib
> * <http://www.wikipedia.org>*
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Some reflections about the governance of Commons

[effe iets anders]

The interface is only part of the problems which were identified. Also the
complicated procedures and the (sometimes considered hostile - although not
even always intentional) community were part of the equation. However, I do
agree that the interface is a huge problem, and fixing that would probably
make the odds to encounter a hostile community member smaller etc.

Lodewijk

2009/6/15 Michael Peel 

> That is more to do with the interface to Commons, as I understand it,
> rather than the governance of it. Flickr is seen as being much easier
> to use. I believe that was also the origin of Pikiwiki - essentially
> creating a better interface to Commons.
>
> BTW, to date I've never had a problem with Commons (after >2000 edits
> and >500 images uploaded).
>
> Mike
>
> On 15 Jun 2009, at 17:58, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > There is a project called "Wiki loves art/nl"  In this project
> > people make
> > pictures of objects in museums in the Netherlands. The thing I have
> > been
> > wondering about is that the pictures are first published on Flickr
> > and then
> > are copied into Commons.
> >
> > This is a project of the Dutch WMF chapter and some other
> > organisations. I
> > read it as "there are too many problems with posting on Commons
> > directly".
> > The reason why I bring this up is because it demonstrates how
> > Commons is not
> > thought of as the helpful project it should be and it is not only
> > pikiwiki
> > that has a problem.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > 2009/6/12 Ting Chen 
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I had started a discussion on the Village Pump of Commons. I think
> >> Commons is a very important project, and a very complicated project.
> >> With more and more projects initiated by our chapters to encourage
> >> other
> >> organizations or individuals to give their content free and upload
> >> them
> >> to Commons it also becomes a fassade project of the Foundation and
> >> its
> >> chapters. This and other reasons make me think that we should as
> >> broadly
> >> as possible to discuss a few issues on Commons. The discussion is
> >> here:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
> >> Commons:Village_pump#Some_reflections_about_the_governance_of_Common
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ting
> >>
> >> Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >> foundation-l
> >>
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia tracks user behaviour via third party companies #2

[effe iets anders]

2009/6/5 Peter Gervai 

> 
> The stats (which have, by surprise, a dedicated domain under th hu
> wikipedia domain) runs on a dedicated server, with nothing else on it.
> Its sole purpose to gather and publish the stats. Basically nobody
> have permission to log in the servers but me, and I since I happen to
> be checkuser as well it wouldn't even be ntertaining to read it, even
> if it wasn't big enough making this useless. I happen to be the one
> who have created the Hungarian checkuser policy, which is, as far as I
> know, the strictest one in WMF projects, and it's no joke, and I
> intend to follow it. (And those who are unfamiliar with me, I happen
> to be the founder of huwp as well, apart from my job in computer
> security.)
> 
>

Just a remark on the checkuser argument. Checkuser actions and checks are
logged, and can be double checked by other checkusers and stewards. This
server can not. I can imagine that this would pose a problem.

eia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] IMPORTANT CHANGES: Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election

[effe iets anders]

Thanks for this compromise :) Could you put in the notes for the next
time something about reconsidering the time table on an earlier moment
and discussing that with the community? :P (so we won't forget)

Best Lodewijk

2009/5/30 Yaroslav M. Blanter :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As promised on this list, the election committee has revisited the
>> election dates.  The election pages have been updated to reflect new
>> dates for this election:  July 28 through August 10.  It is our hope
>> that this expanded voting time will serve to allay some of the
>> concerns raised here and allow a broader participation from the
>> community.
>>
>> The election information remains at:
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009
>>
>> For the committee,
>> Philippe
>>
>
> This is a great development, thank you and the rest of the committee.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/28 Ray Saintonge :
> effe iets anders wrote:
>>
>> Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if
>> the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to
>> interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in
>> the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So just
>> wondering how that would work out if someone boldly made the move
>> /after/ the deadline and someone would bring it to a legal case. Is
>> there any precendence on this is the US?
>>
>
> I doubt it.  I think there is very little precedent anywhere about the legal
> effect of these licences.  Before a judge renders a decision the case has to
> get into court in the first place, and I find it difficult to imagine who
> would have the standing to start such a case.
>
> Ec
>

That probably would be someone complaining about someone else
relicensing their content :) Which is not likely, and definitely not
us of course, but mainly a thought experiment. I'm just meaning to
say, it is not too hard to put anything you like in any kind of
agreement/license, but what is the actual value of it? I really don't
know.

Lodewijk

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election

[effe iets anders]

But last year was earlier :) Not in the very middle of the vacation.

Lodewijk

2009/5/27 philippe :
> Ah, OK, sorry for my misunderstanding of the question.
>
> Indeed, we had that same discussion amongst the committee.  In the
> end, the vote timing is driven by Wikimania and the need to purchase
> tickets for the new trustees-designate to get there (at a reasonable
> price, which usually requires a 14 day advance purchase), while also
> taking the time to get the translations done as completely as possible.
>
> In addition, it was our feeling that last year that the first week had
> - by far - the vast majority of the votes cast with relatively little
> movement afterwards.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> philippe
>
> On May 27, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Angela wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM, philippe 
>> wrote:
>>> The reason not to have it in two weeks is that it generally takes
>>> longer than that to effectively translate both the policy pages and
>>> the candidate statements to allow as many people to participate in as
>>> many languages as possible.  Two weeks would almost guarantee a
>>> primarily english-centric election.  In the past we've had no problem
>>> getting the votes counted/confirmed in two days; we did it last year.
>>
>> I believe the suggestion is to have the vote lasting for 2 weeks, not
>> starting in 2 weeks from now.
>>
>> Voting last for 3 weeks in past elections.
>>
>> Angela
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/27 Angela :
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM, philippe  wrote:
>> The reason not to have it in two weeks is that it generally takes
>> longer than that to effectively translate both the policy pages and
>> the candidate statements to allow as many people to participate in as
>> many languages as possible.  Two weeks would almost guarantee a
>> primarily english-centric election.  In the past we've had no problem
>> getting the votes counted/confirmed in two days; we did it last year.
>
> I believe the suggestion is to have the vote lasting for 2 weeks, not
> starting in 2 weeks from now.
>
> Voting last for 3 weeks in past elections.
>
> Angela
>
indeed, thanks for clarifying :)

Lodewijk

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) :
> The point I was making is that I expect people will continue importing
> and exporting as per past practice with no attention given to the
> issue and few people caring. From a legal point of view that's not
> optimal, but I think it's highly likely.
>
> Who set the August 1 deadline and who has the power to extend it if needed?
>
> Newyorkbrad
>

The Free Software Foundation did, in the 1.3 version of the GFDL.

-- Lodewijk

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/27 Samuel Klein :
> Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to
> copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which
> chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange with
> Wikipedia -- and  they will slowly lose access to the latest WP
> updates over months or years.   (we are also gaining direct access to
> new sites, but that happens regardless of how we approach this hurdle)
>
>
> Thomas Dalton writes:
>> The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving
>> content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going
>> the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will
>> be dual licensed.
>
> Yes, wikipedia will continue to dual license for as long as this is
> possible.  This will help GFDL-only projects dependent on Wikipedia
> benefit from future edits for as long as possible, but it will only
> last so long.  Once CC-BY-SA content is merged into an article, future
> revisions of the article are BY-SA only.  Within a couple of years,
> Wikipedia will be basically a BY-SA project (with a historical
> snapshot still available under GFDL).  Third parties should not be
> fooled into thinking that this finesse is equivalent to being a
> dual-licensed project forever.  If they don't switch now, they will
> not have the chance to do so in the future.
>
>
> geni writes:
>> Not much. Not many active third party GFDL projects so it is unlikely
>> that there will significant amounts of new GFDL content produced in
>> future and most existing stuff of interest has long since been
>> imported.
>
> A quick look at the recentchanges of the 18 large wikis listed on the
> outreach page will show you that it's not true that "most existing
> stuff of relevance has long been imported" -- these are active
> communities, each working in their own world; which sporadically draw
> from Wiki[p]edia and from which we slightly more sporadically draw in
> return.
>
> I am surprised you (of all people :) have such faith in the horde or
> importers.  I was looking at the glorious media and high-res source
> text scans at wdl.org yesterday, and could not find a single piece of
> that public domain media that was already on Commons and used in the
> obvious Wikipedia article / on its own Wikisource page.  Maybe I
> wasn't looking in the right place... but that's a month after a global
> publicity blitz.
>
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, effe iets anders
>  wrote:
>> as long as they convert /before/ the deadline...
>
> Exactly.And there are some energetic new projects such as Medpedia
> that are just getting off the ground, with enthusiastic new authors
> and a constellation of supporters... they'd probably love to convert,
> but need someone to explain this to them in time for them to work
> through their own red tape.
>
> SJ
>
Which makes me wonder how a judge would rule on this btw. Because if
the GFDL and CCBYSA are enough similar before the deadline to
interchange, why wouldn't they be afterwards? Except for that line in
the GFDL version, I don't see legal reasoning behind that... So just
wondering how that would work out if someone boldly made the move
/after/ the deadline and someone would bring it to a legal case. Is
there any precendence on this is the US?

Lodewijk

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Information about 2009 Board of Trustees election

[effe iets anders]

Hm, that was also the information I got :)

Besides that, I personally feel that one week in the middle of the
vacation is somewhat short for an internet election. Is there an
urgent reason not to have it for two weeks? And good luck to count and
confirm the votes within two days time! :o I'd find it impressive if
that works so well in that tight schedule.

Best,

Lodewijk

2009/5/27 Ting Chen :
> Hello Philippe,
>
> I thought this year three candidates would be elected.
>
> Ting
>
> philippe wrote:
>> Information concerning the election rules, candidacy, and suffrage/
>> voting requirements for the 2009 election to the Board of Trustees is
>> now posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/en.
>> I have copied it below, but for the wiki-links to work, you will - of
>> course - need to be on meta.
>>
>> For the election committee,
>> Philippe
>>
>> 
>>
>> The 2009 elections to the Board of Trustees will be held between
>> August 3rd and August 10th 2009. Members of the Wikimedia community
>> have the opportunity to elect one candidate to a two-year term which
>> will expire in 2011. The Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing
>> authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
>> organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation
>> manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.
>> The elections will be held securely on servers belonging to an
>> independent third party (to be confirmed). Votes are secret and are
>> only visible to the select few persons who audit and tally the
>> election. Voters will submit ranked preferences by numbering
>> candidates. The votes will be tallied using the Schulze methodto rank
>> candidates based on the number of voters who prefer that candidate
>> over other candidates.
>> The Election Committee intends to announce the results on or before
>> August 12th. Detailed results will be available. All times on this
>> page are 00:00 (midnight) UTC.
>> Contents [hide]
>> 1 Information for voters
>> 1.1 Requirements
>> 1.2 How to vote
>> 2 Information for candidates
>> 2.1 Responsibilities as member of the Board
>> 2.2 Prerequisites to candidacy
>> 2.3 How to submit your candidacy
>> 3 Organization
>> 3.1 Time line
>> 3.2 Translators
>> [edit]Information for voters
>>
>> [edit]Requirements
>> You may vote from any one registered account you own on a Wikimedia
>> wiki (you may only vote once, regardless of how many accounts you
>> own). To qualify, this one account must:
>> not be blocked; and
>> not be a bot; and
>> have made at least 600 edits before 01 June 2009 across across
>> Wikimedia wikis (edits on several wikis can be combined if your
>> accounts are unified into a global account); and
>> have made at least 50 edits between 01 January and 1 July 2009.
>> Special exceptions: the following may vote regardless of the above
>> requirements:
>> Wikimedia server administrators with shell access;
>> paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the
>> office before 01 March 2009;
>> current or former members of the Board of Trustees.
>> [edit]How to vote
>> If you are eligible to vote:
>> Read the candidate presentations and decide which candidates you will
>> support.
>> Go to the wiki page "Special:Securepoll" on one wiki you qualify to
>> vote from. For example, if you are most active on the wiki
>> meta.wikimedia.org/, go to meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Securepoll.
>> Follow the instructions on that page.
>> [edit]Information for candidates
>>
>> A detailed description of the responsibilities of a member of the
>> Board can be found at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member.
>> [edit]Responsibilities as member of the Board
>> Being a Board member of a small organization like the Wikimedia
>> Foundation, which faces immense challenges, can be time-consuming. The
>> position is voluntary and unpaid. While board members are not expected
>> to bring personal money to the organisation, they are welcome to help
>> raise funds.
>> Board members are expected to attend at least 3–4 meetings per year in
>> person, attend Wikimania (our annual conference), and attend other
>> scheduled online meetings and votes. The Board communicates
>> intensively via e-mail, wiki, and IRC. Individual trustees sometimes
>> participate in strategic meetings with other organizations and
>> companies, relaying results back to Board and staff.
>> Individual board members are expected to be involved in certain
>> activities (such as fundraising, Wikimania, or auditing) and to help
>> draft policies, charters and resolutions on such topics.
>> Because Board members owe duties by virtue of their position,
>> candidates who currently hold paid positions with the Wikimedia
>> Foundation must resign from those position before they can be
>> appointed to the Board of Trustees. This is to avoid potential
>> conflicts of interests.
>> [edit]Prerequisites to candidacy
>> To be eligible as a ca

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

[effe iets anders]

as long as they convert /before/ the deadline...

lodewijk

2009/5/27 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) :
>> Thanks for circulating this.
>>
>> Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90%
>> or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not
>> understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their
>> own sites or on-wiki. What are the practical implications of this if
>> nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone?
>
> The only situation where there is going to be a problem is moving
> content from a wiki that doesn't convert to a Wikimedia wiki. Going
> the other way will be fine in most cases, most Wikimedia content will
> be dual licensed. If every Wikimedian that takes content off other
> wikis (how many of those are there?) goes to those wikis and
> recommends they convert, then we should be ok.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/23 David Gerard 

> 2009/5/23 Mike.lifeguard :
>
> > I have been keeping an eye on what content got imported on English
> > Wikibooks. If there has been anything imported from offsite GFDL-only
> > sources I'm not aware of it. To be honest though, that's not saying much
> > - we often have contributors bring us whole books they wrote elsewhere -
> > but that's not a violation since they'd be the copyright holder and can
> > relicense it however they want. I doubt there are any similar cases
> > which do violate the terms, but I'd love some help checking that.
>
>
> What are licensing requirements for Wikibooks and Wikisource? Did they
> require GFDL or would any free license do, as is the case for Commons?
>

depends on the language you're talking about :)


>
> (I would have thought a freer choice of licenses would have been
> feasible, since works are likely to stay separate. I'd have
> particularly thought this the case for Wikisource.)
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution

[effe iets anders]

also, Dutch Wikibooks made the switch for all new content after 15 April
2007 already for the dual license CC-BY-SA / GFDL, so nothing new here for
them, except that old content will finally /all/ be dual licensed :) (no
more exceptions on pages with older versions).

A big notice in the general sitenotice for all visitors might be worth while
btw to reach all re-users.

best, lodewijk

2009/5/22 Liam Wyatt 

> Congratulations to everyone involved in the effort to get this happening!
> It's been a long road - a longer road than many of us have seen.
>
> Just a quick point I'd like to raise about Wikinews in relation to the
> license change.
>
> Wikinews has never used GFDL or cc-by-sa, it uses cc-by. Therefore, this
> license change will not be affecting Wikinews.
> As a result I think it's important that we don't say in any of our public
> statements on this topic "all Wikimedia projects are changing...". Instead
> I
> suggest that we use phrases like "all GFDL content" or "All relevant
> Wikimedia projects" or something like that.
>
> The board statement is ambiguous on this point. It says "...to relicense
> the
> Wikimedia sites..." but the Wikimedia Foundation blog said "the Wikimedia
> Foundation will proceed with the implementation of a CC-BY-SA/GFDL dual
> license system *on all of our project’s* content." [my emphasis]. The
> licensing
> update  page on Meta does
> specify that we are only talking about content which is currently GFDL: "to
> make all content currently distributed under the GNU Free Documentation
> License (with “later version” clause) additionally available under CC-BY-SA
> 3.0, as explicitly allowed through the latest version of the GFDL;"
>
> Once again, congratulations everyone on the hard work and diligent effort
> on
> this complicated issue.
>
> -Liam [[witty lama]]
> p.s. I suppose the same point goes for Wikimedia Commons which includes a
> whole variety of licenses including much in the Public Domain.
>
> wittylama.com/blog
> Sent from Sydney, Nsw, Australia
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Chapter Selected Board Seats

[effe iets anders]

Hi all,

Thank you for announcing this, Jan-Bart. I'm just as happy that we have
reached a conclusion. There were many discussions before we came to this
conclusion, and I think we have an excellent set of board members here.
Michael has served on the board already for quite a while, and brings in
experience on that side besides his legal experience, and I'm glad he will
remain on board. Arne has been involved with the growth of the German
chapter, and brings in some organizational expertise on that side.

I hope very much that the board in the new setting will proof to be indeed a
successful one, now we are entering these exciting times of strategy
setting. More even then before it is important to have strategic,
experienced and motivated board members who can handle the task ahead. I
have all faith in these people to do that.

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2009/5/22 James Forrester 

> 2009/5/22 Jan-Bart de Vreede :
>
> [Snip]
>
> > Please join me in welcoming Arne to the board and congratulating
> > Michael on his re-appointment. On behalf of the board I would like to
> > thank all those involved in facilitating the process and making these
> > appointments possible.
>
> Absolutely, my congratulations both to Arne and to Michael.
>
> Yours,
> --
> James D. Forrester
> jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com
> [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update vote result

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/22 Anthony 

> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:12 PM, effe iets anders <
> effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2009/5/22 Anthony 
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Which way do neutral votes count on RfA?
>> >
>>
>> 1) at which project (and please dont use enwiki abbreviations)
>
>
> The important one (and why not).
>
Ah, meta? :) - seriously, i don't see why only to consider enwiki methods.
Sure, most voters came from there, but this is an interwiki decision, where
interwiki measures would make more sense. But well, not that it matters
anyway, these things should be decided /beforehand/ not afterwards.


>
>
>
>> 2) does it matter? :)
>
>
> Just wondering.
>
> I see from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat_discussionthat
>  they seem to be excluded from the %.
>
well, since those are about people, and this isn't, I dont see any relevance
:P Usually the two categories are treated differently.

-- eia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update vote result

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/22 Anthony 

>
>
> Which way do neutral votes count on RfA?
>

1) at which project (and please dont use enwiki abbreviations)
2) does it matter? :)

eia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not censored (was Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/18 Nathan 

>
>
> I think if there was demand for this within the editing community, it would
> already exist. The problem, then, is not what to do for the editors who
> might like a "safe" option but for the readers who don't have an account
> and
> can't set preferences or add .js widgets. Maybe not right now, but I can
> see
> in the future shooting for a kids.wikipedia.org or safe.wikipedia.org -
> perhaps Simple Wikipedia, which has had some criticism for its mission,
> could be adapted for the purpose.
>
> Nathan
>  
>

I'd prefer to take the OSM-approach here. Let others port our content and
filter the relevant parts out if they wish to build a safe Wikipedia
version, especially since there are (almost) unlimited possibilities to
combine articles to suitability for usergroups. If someone wants to set up
kiddopedia.org and mirror Wikipedia content there with the exception of
sexual subjects, be my guest. It doesn't have to be Wikimedia who's doing
that. We should limit ourselves somewhere in what we want to do, and what we
would others to pick up if there is a need. Which is perfectly possible
thanks to this wonderful license of ours.

eia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Open teaching materials in the Netherlands

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/19 Ziko van Dijk 

> Hello,
>
> Maybe this is interesting for Wikimedians too, certainly for Wikibookians.
> The Dutch ministry of education is going to set up "Wikiwijs", a project to
> develop provide open and free school books or teaching materials to Dutch
> schools. In the elections the parties promised to abolish parents' payments
> for school books, and now the government has to cope with the costs.
>
> On a seminar in Amersfoort at Friday it became obvious that many questions
> are still unanswered. Wikiwijs is intended to be a platform for
> collaboratively developping teachings materials, but also link to already
> existing materials (also commercial ones). Although a letter of the
> minister
> to the parliament said that only teachers will be able to edit on Wikiwijs,
> now this remains to be discussed.
>
> Kennisnet (a government foundation known to Wikimedians because it
> supported
> Wikipedia with technological help) and the Open University are commissioned
> to create Wikiwijs. The man from the Open University admitted that Wikiwijs
> will not work like a wiki, and Marjon Bakker from Wikimedia Nederland asked
> him why the name is Wikiwijs then. (But on many occasions the minister and
> others compared Wikiwijs to Wikipedia - are they exploiting our good name?)
>
> The organisation of Dutch high schools wants to set up a different project.
> This has to do a lot with the distribution of power between the agents in
> the educational system in the Netherlands, and also within the schools.
>
> Nearly all already existing initiatives for open teaching materials use the
> CC-NC-SA, the Creative Commons license that prohibits commercial use. I was
> told that you cannot explain to teachers why others should have the right
> to
> commercially exploit their work...


Correction, it was actually mentioned that the Wikiwijs project was
intending to use the CC-BY license. And I'm in conversation with at least
one other organisation that intended to use NC, but might change their
might. Things are not as NC as they seem at first sight :)


>
>
> The project manager of the organisation of Dutch high schools gave me a
> very
> striking reason against a license that allows commercial use: Most of the
> teachers want to teach with the help of ordinary school books, with
> additional material taken from the internet. They want to have something on
> paper. If the school book publishers are allowed to make print versions
> from
> open content, then the teachers want those print versions. They will put
> pressure on their head masters to buy them, and then the shift from print
> to
> digital will not occur, and the plan of the organisation to save 385
> millions €  will not become reality. So, the manager says, the better if
> the
> publishers cannot sell print versions.
>
> Ziko van Dijk
>
> read more in German on
> http://groups.google.de/group/infobrief-wiki-welt/msg/21c9f6c00634d13c?
>
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> NL-Silvolde
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted

[effe iets anders]

The affiliate question was mainly triggered by page 1, question H (and might
be especially interesting in later files of 990 with US chapters on their
way who might or might not be affiliates according to the IRS definition).

I noted that question H(c) has not been filled in. I assume that this is
because this was considered a follow up question on H(a)?

Best,

eia

2009/5/15 Veronique Kessler 

> Hi,
>
> The donations in-kind refer to donated internet hosting costs and legal
> fees.  In our 07-08 audit report, we discuss the volunteer contribution but
> did not attempt to quantify it in terms of a dollar value.  We are
> investigating how best to reflect this in next year's audit report.
>
> I don't know much about Part III, question 1 so I look forward to hearing
> from the community.
>
> In terms of affiliates, can you please point me to the specific line/lines
> you are looking at so I am sure to answer the question correctly.
>
> Veronique
>
>
> effe iets anders wrote:
>
>> Hi Veronique,
>>
>> thanks for posting this. In Part VI, question 82b, it is mentioned that
>> 333,125 USD was donated in kind. Can you confirm that this does not
>> include
>> the volunteer contributions to Wikipedia? (assume not, or at least hope
>> that
>> it's not valued that low ;-) )
>>
>> A more general question for anyone who knows: Part III, question 1
>> mentions
>> whether the org. tried to influence politics. Does anyone know 1) what
>> this
>> includes (only US politics or also foreign, also mission related lobbying
>> (free licenses for example) or only general R/D lobbying) and 2) whether
>> answering Yes would make any difference to the tax status etc for the WMF?
>> (just interested :) )
>>
>> The document asks about affiliates. When, according to the IRS, is an
>> organization an "affiliate"?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> eia
>>
>> 2009/5/13 Veronique Kessler 
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Please note that the 2007 Form 990 which covers fiscal year July 1, 2007
>>> through June 30, 2008 has been posted to the Wikimedia Foundation
>>> website at:
>>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_2008_Form_990.pdf
>>>
>>> Also posted are questions and answers which can be found at:
>>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Form_2007_Questions_and_Answers
>>>
>>> Of course I am available to answer questions as well.
>>>
>>> Veronique
>>>
>>> ___
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Collecting or spreading information (was: Wikipedia is not the karma sutra)

[effe iets anders]

You could spread someone else's knowledge, no problem.

And conflicts there always are. If the collection of some content hinders
the general spreading, such as with the sexual images might be the case (but
that is just an example, you could just as well use images of the prophet
Muhamed as example)  then one should consider which is more important. It is
all about priorities in the end. Not only when in conflict but also when
facing limited resources.

eia

2009/5/14 Thomas Dalton 

> 2009/5/14 effe iets anders :
> > Here we have an interesting discussion topic. So what /is/ the main focus
> of
> > Wikimedia? Is it about collecting together free knowledge, or is it about
> > spreading it?
>
> I think it is clear that we need to do both. You can't spread
> information you don't have and there is no point collecting
> information if nobody uses it. I'm not convinced these two goals are
> in any real conflict.
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Collecting or spreading information (was: Wikipedia is not the karma sutra)

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/14 Ivan Lanin 

> 
>
> > * Are we the only one able to perform a certain task? Are we the single
> (and
> > therefore important) link in a chain from knowledge to receiver?
>
> No, we are not the one. The government should actually do that. But,
> we are an important alternative *collector* of information and
> therefore should also be able to spread it.
> 


What I actually meant here was: " Are we irreplacable?" ie, if our part of
the chain breaks, does that mean the chain collapses? Because if that is so,
then we should make sure that we don't break definitely :)

Lodewijk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted

[effe iets anders]

Hi Veronique,

thanks for posting this. In Part VI, question 82b, it is mentioned that
333,125 USD was donated in kind. Can you confirm that this does not include
the volunteer contributions to Wikipedia? (assume not, or at least hope that
it's not valued that low ;-) )

A more general question for anyone who knows: Part III, question 1 mentions
whether the org. tried to influence politics. Does anyone know 1) what this
includes (only US politics or also foreign, also mission related lobbying
(free licenses for example) or only general R/D lobbying) and 2) whether
answering Yes would make any difference to the tax status etc for the WMF?
(just interested :) )

The document asks about affiliates. When, according to the IRS, is an
organization an "affiliate"?

Thanks!

eia

2009/5/13 Veronique Kessler 

> Dear All,
>
> Please note that the 2007 Form 990 which covers fiscal year July 1, 2007
> through June 30, 2008 has been posted to the Wikimedia Foundation
> website at: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:WMF_2008_Form_990.pdf
>
> Also posted are questions and answers which can be found at:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Form_2007_Questions_and_Answers
>
> Of course I am available to answer questions as well.
>
> Veronique
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Collecting or spreading information (was: Wikipedia is not the karma sutra)

[effe iets anders]

Here we have an interesting discussion topic. So what /is/ the main focus of
Wikimedia? Is it about collecting together free knowledge, or is it about
spreading it? If it would only be about spreading, I think we have at least
chosen the wrong shape, because a page full of links would then be more
appropriate. But we're not just about collecting either, it seems, since we
try to work on spreading the content through dumps (although not optimally),
DVD's and printed versions. We do a lot of activities which are focussed on
spreading the stuff we collected first.

But which of the two is more important to us, and which takes preference? To
think about that, we should take a few things into consideration:

* Are we the only one able to perform a certain task? Are we the single (and
therefore important) link in a chain from knowledge to receiver?
* Is there an activity someone else could do more effectively?
* Is there an activity we could do most effectively?
* Is there a part that is connected directly to our identity, which we do
not /want/ to let go?
* What are the side effects to limiting/extending ourselves on one of the
two?
* How does the main public (also our main moneymaker) see us/expect us to
act?

This type of questions we should try to answer in a more general shape to
find an answer on the specific question of the " necklace"  article and
specific photo's.

I don't claim to know all the answers to these questions, nor do I think
anyone does, actually. However, I hope we will alltogether try to address
this type of questions, perhaps as part of the strategy process.

I personally don't think we can see this specific group of articles as
different as the other 12 million. There are many many categories, and
there's a lot to say for deleting each single one of them. (insulting to
some people, confusing, dangerous if people follow it, dangerous information
for terrorists, distracting from the real information, you probably know all
the possible reasons even better then I do). If we would ever exclude one
set of topics, we should be very carefully considering where to draw the
line exactly, to avoid that we will drift off to who-knows-where with the
argument "yeah, but if that gets deleted, this should be going too". That
goes both for articles and images (even editors who are getting blocked).

I think that Wikipedia is best in collecting information. That is the place
what we are best in, that is what no other website is able to imitate on
this scale. That is also what the general public expects from us. I feel
that this is what Wikipedia's primary focus should be. However, that should
not exclude any thoughts about restraining ourselves if that furthers the
other goal, spreading. But also consider that the spreading to people who
want to avoid sexual content, could also be done by others. It should not be
too hard to build a filter to censor Wikipedia from that type of information
and even images for example based on the categorization.

Best regards,

lodewijk

 Fred Bauder 

> The image is an excellent illustration of its subject. However I would
> prefer a policy which excluded both it and the article in which it is
> used as an illustration. I'm not sure how the policy should be elaborated
> in our policy pages, but essentially this sort of material is
> incompatible with our core mission, to provide an accessible compendium
> of knowledge to the world.
>
> I was discussing Wikipedia with a Mohs surgeon the other day, he happened
> to be a Mormon. Other than the articles on dermatology and Mohs surgery,
> we talked about his 13 year old daughter who had been discouraged by her
> school from using Wikipedia. An article such as Pearl necklace
> (sexuality) adds little to a girl's knowledge base in comparison to the
> barrier it raises to her use of the encyclopedia.
>
> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a
> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
> Karma Sutra.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Cross-wiki articles

[effe iets anders]

2009/5/3 Ting Chen :
>
> My experience is that people outside of Wikipedia community (the pure
> users or people that only heard of Wikipedia) in Germany don't
> differentiate between the qualities of the language versions. I don't
> think that the quality of the German Wikipedia had the impact on the
> outreach to government or libraries. It is more the organization and
> professionalism of the chapter.
>
> Personally I don't think that take the classical encyclopedia as a
> measure is a good thing. The classical encyclopedia was restrained on
> the unpossibility of to print books in such big volumes. An electronic
> encyclopedia has far more possibilities and if we take an old fashioned
> measure as our measurement we artificially abondane some of the
> possibilities that the new technology offer us.
>
> --
> Ting

I think that if the public does /not/ differentiate, that is actually
quite a compliment. That actually shows that the quality is better,
because it corrects for the lower quantity and the assumptions that
English must be better because more people. For example in the
Netherlands, a lot of people still say " well, yes, I use Wikipedia,
but of course only the English, which is much better and extensive" .
This while the Dutch version is absolutely not small (>500k articles)
and imho not with a very low quality. So if people don't
differentiate, that already tells something about the German version
:)

Best, Lodewijk

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] General Assembly and guided tour / Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss Nation al Library)

[effe iets anders]

that gives a 404

2009/1/30 Michael Bimmler 

> The silently stripped PDF is at (English version)
>
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediach-l/attachments/20090130/8dc29ea1/attachment-0002.PDF
>
> Sorry about that!
>
> M.
>
> On 1/30/09, Michael Bimmler  wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >> From: Michael Bimmler 
> >> Date: 30 January 2009 16:38:29 GMT+01:00
> >> To: memb...@wikimedia.ch, wikimediac...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Subject: [Wikimedia CH Members] General Assembly and guided tour /
> >> Mitgliederversammlung und Führung (Swiss National Library)
> >>
> >
> >> Dear members, dear friends of Wikimedia CH
> >> liebe Mitglieder, liebe Freunde von Wikimedia CH
> >>
> >> It is with great pleasure that I invite you to the General Assembly
> >> 2009 of Wikimedia CH, to be held on the 28th of March, in Berne.
> >> Please find the details attached as a PDF.
> >>
> >> Ich lade Sie herzlich zur Generalversammlung 2009 von Wikimedia CH
> >> ein, welche am 28. März in Bern stattfinden wird. Die detaillierte M
> >> itteilung finden Sie als angehängte PDF-Datei.
> >>
> >> Une version française de cette invitation sera fournie dès que possi
> >> ble.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> freundliche Grüsse,
> >>
> >> Michael Bimmler
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michael Bimmler
> >> President
> >>
> >> Wikimedia CH
> >> Association for the Advancement of Free Knowledge
> >> Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
> >> 8008 Zürich
> >> Switzerland
> >> +41 44 912 20 18 (home)
> >> +41 79 864 88 18 (mobile)
> >> michael.bimm...@wikimedia.ch
> >> http://www.wikimedia.ch
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Members mailing list
> >> memb...@wikimedia.ch
> >> http://lists.wikimedia.ch/listinfo/members
> >
>
>
> --
> Michael Bimmler
> mbimm...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Agreement between WMF and O'Reilly Media about Wikipedia: The Missing Manual on Wikipedia?

[effe iets anders]

Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.

Why not just copy it and see where it flourishes best?

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton 

> 2009/1/28 Chad :
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton  >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen :
> >> > Hoi,
> >> > You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected
> Wikipedian,
> >> > can relicense it to anything he likes.
> >>
> >> Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
> >> can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need to be deleted.
> >>
> >
> > Did you consider asking him?
>
> No, we haven't even decided if we are going to switch yet.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Open Knowledge Foundation

[effe iets anders]

They have Benjamin Mako Hill in their advisory board, who is also in the WMF
AB. Other then that, I see nothing familiar.

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2009/1/26 Lennart Guldbrandsson 

> Hello,
>
> I was recently made aware of this organization: http://www.okfn.org/ with
> their blog at  http://blog.okfn.org/
>
> Have any of you had anything to do with them?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lennart
>
>
>
> --
> Lennart Guldbrandsson, chair of Wikimedia Sverige and press contact for
> Swedish Wikipedia // ordförande för Wikimedia Sverige och presskontakt för
> svenskspråkiga Wikipedia
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Steward-Wahl

[effe iets anders]

Please note that stewards are not an electoral college. Although it is
positive if there are stewards around that have an understanding of a
project in case there is something complicated going on, there is absolutely
no necessity to have stewards from specific angles. It is not like stewards
come together and vote on something, there are no ratio's to be held.

Lodewijk

2009/1/20 Casey Brown 

> 2009/1/20 Jan Luca :
> > Aber, wenn kein Steward von einen der Wikiversity-Projekte kommt und auch
> > keiner dort mitarbeitet, ist es schwer das Projekt zu beurteilen, da man
> > keinen "Live"-Mitarbeiter hat.
> >
> > Ich weiß, dass Stewards global sind und auf alle Projekte zugreifen
> können.
> >
>
> Yes, you are right -- it's best to have well-rounded candidates.  But
> in the end, stewards don't decide so they are just people to do the
> actions of the community.
>
> However, if you really want to get a Wikiversity candidate, the only
> way to do it is to encourage them to nominate themselves!  You have a
> few days left. :-)
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> ---
> Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent
> to
> this address will probably get lost.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee

[effe iets anders]

I don´t think this is very fair. You can call Gerard a lot, but not really
agressive... He can be very enthusiast, committed, and very sure he is
right, and trying to persuade others, but agressive?

Anyway, I don't think a mailinglist (especially not this one) is a good
place to discuss *people* rather then subjects. Have you tried to discuss
your problems directly with Gerard, Muhammad and David? Sometimes that
helps.

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2009/1/10 David Gerard 

> 2009/1/10 Muhammad Alsebaey :
>
> >   - Gerard has been the *only* person from LangCom that I have seen reply
> >   to any of the issues, his replies are selective, he refuses to answer
> >   whatever he doesnt think is relevant to his argument and is in general
> very
> >   aggressive, If the guys at LangCom chose him as the public face, I
> would say
> >   they were looking to pick fights rather than communicate decisions.
>
>
> Seconded, particularly the aggression.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Don't know how linked we still are with wikia...

[effe iets anders]

But was that connection close enough (even in the old days) to
complain here about copyright violations there? I think Tim had a good
point here :P

Lodewijk

2009/1/5 Dan Rosenthal :
> I don't think this is entirely accurate. For instance, there was the
> annual report several months ago noting that we had shared some office
> space with them. That was relevant to this list.
>
> -Dan
> On Jan 4, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>> Brock Weller wrote:
>>> Don't know how linked we still are with wikia...
>>
>> What do you mean "still"? Wikimedia has never been linked with Wikia
>> to
>> the extent where this topic might be relevant on foundation-l. It's no
>> more relevant than Wikitravel, Jimmy's objectivist mailing lists or
>> Answers.com.
>>
>> What Wikimedia's volunteers do outside of Wikimedia is their own
>> business.
>>
>> -- Tim Starling
>>
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Don't know how linked we still are with wikia...

[effe iets anders]

Please note that that part is quite outdated. As was my remark
apperently btw, I understand that there have been changes since :)

Anyway, ask staff :P

Lodewijk

2009/1/4 Delirium :
> Brock Weller wrote:
>> I don't care if its up or down, i was just wondering if we're still
>> connected to wikia in anyway (ie it reflect badly on us). If we're not, as
>> it seems by your response, then I really don't care too much :)
>
> There's a bit on that here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia#Wikia_and_the_Wikimedia_Foundation
>
> The short of it is that there's no official connection, but perhaps more
> entanglement than would be ideal, though the level of entanglement has
> been decreasing.
>
> -Mark
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Don't know how linked we still are with wikia...

[effe iets anders]

As far as I am aware (but someone staff should be able to clarify more
in-depth), the only connection is Jimmy who has two hats on his head
(director? at Wikia and board member at WMF), and no official ties. And
Wikia sponsors (still?) Wikimania of course! But no offices are shared any
more.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. There is enough bad reflection of our own
if people really search, so don't worry :)

Lodewijk

2009/1/3 Brock Weller 

> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Chad  wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Brock Weller 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Brock Weller 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > but this  (
> > > > http://saveourrights.wikia.com/wiki/Overview ) is disturbing. It's a
> > > > conspiracy pit of nutjobs. There's full fledged copyright violations
> of
> > > > entire articles from newspapers (
> > > > http://saveourrights.wikia.com/wiki/Nini_and_Nunu ) publishing of
> > names,
> > > > addresses and occasional phone numbers of private citizens who stand
> as
> > > > electors (
> > http://saveourrights.wikia.com/wiki/New_York_Electors_(2008)
> 
> > 
> > > )
> and
> > a
> > > cut and paste copy of an article on wikiquote (
> > > > http://saveourrights.wikia.com/wiki/William_Blackstone ). Theres
> also
> > > the
> > > > issue that the what can I do to help? page uses "SOVERIGN" in all
> caps
> > > and
> > > > quotes like that, which is a tax protestor myth, being if they use
> that
> > > in
> > > > court documents they are "soverign citizens" and the judges dont have
> > > > jurisdiction over them.
> > > >
> > > > Somebody might want to do something about this.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -Brock
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just to clarify a little, these are the obama is a british citizen and
> > cant
> > > be president people.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -Brock
> > > ___
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > Other than a takedown notice for the copy+paste violation (which the
> > original
> > authors would have to do), this doesn't really involve the Foundation.
> > You're
> > better off contacting Wikia for this.
> >
> > -Chad
>
>
> I don't care if its up or down, i was just wondering if we're still
> connected to wikia in anyway (ie it reflect badly on us). If we're not, as
> it seems by your response, then I really don't care too much :)
>
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -Brock
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Ombudsman commission

[effe iets anders]

Hm, I always saw the ombudsman commission as a commission very different and
seperate from the whole commission structure. If I recall correctly, it was
mainly to fill a Real Gap, namely an option to file complaints for breach of
privacy policy. I think this clearly defined mission is quite different from
for instance communication committee, special projects committee and
chapters committee, which are much more vaguely defined, no clear purposes
and with vague membership and authority to the outer world. As I saw and see
it, is the ombudsman commission a replacement for a real ombudsman, a place
to file complaints without having to go to court.

Therefore, I'd like to plea to remain this structure if there are no
complaints about that as such, no matter what happens to the commission
structure as a whole.

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2009/1/2 Michael Snow 

> Eia wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > A few days ago, the term for the ombudsman commission expired.
> > Unfortunately, I missed an announcement about the commission for 2009.
> Could
> > someone clarify who will be the 2009 members, and where the announcement
> > (will be/is) made?
> >
> We're currently reevaluating the ombudsman commission as part of a
> larger rethinking of the committee system that was established some
> years ago, before the foundation had much in the way of staff or
> structure. This will be a significant topic in our board meeting next
> week, and I hope we can provide more information after the meeting.
>
> In the meantime, if anyone would like to offer feedback, I would be very
> happy to hear it. In particular, ideas or suggestions on what our needs
> are and how best to satisfy them. I'm less interested in random
> complaints about this or that committee, I think we're already aware of
> most of the concerns that have been raised, although anyone who thinks
> they know of a problem nobody has ever mentioned before is welcome to
> contact me off-list. I'm more interested in analysis of how our
> committees work, what their strengths and limitations are, what can be
> reasonably expected of them, and how we should fill in the gaps.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] which is the year's subject?

[effe iets anders]

[[me]]

2008/12/30 Brian 

> [[Barack Obama]]
> [[Induced pluripotent stem cell]]
>
>
> Next years will be [[Large hadron collider]]
>
> :)
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Crazy Lover <
> always_yours.fore...@yahoo.com
> > wrote:
>
> > What subject, can be consider the year's subject?
> >
> > C.m.l.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> You have successfully failed!
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 2008 Annual Fundraiser - Going into Phas e 2

[effe iets anders]

Hm, btw, where was again that list with all incoming donations?

Lodewijk

2008/12/24 Przykuta 

>
> >
> > So, Obama has won election in the USA, people are more happy (maybe not
> only part of people in USA) - they want to pay for that ;)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
>
> Just simple behaviors :)
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics
>
> ~everyone wants to be Santa Claus ;) Jimbo's appeal is a good move. ("yes
> we can"? - a god meme to use in acknowledgement, "yes, we can" + "be bold" =
> ?)
>
> So, be bold during Christmas and all next days
>
> przykuta
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales donation appeal

[effe iets anders]

Up to now, I kinda liked the fundraiser. Although they are very shouty for
what I'm used to (I dislike the red button for instance and the somewhat
agressive tone), I think this last change in message could use a *little*
step back. Please use a slightly smaller font, an slightly less shouty text.
To me it really reads like " wow, now we're really desperate, PLEASE COME
READ THIS ** APPEAL". I would really appreciate it if this last banner would
be done a little less in a way that comes to me (justified or not) as
"typical American"...

As said, a slightly smaller font, and a grey color could do miracles here.

Lodewijk

2008/12/23 Gregory Maxwell 

> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Casey Brown 
> wrote:
> > Some pretty nice comments mixed in there. ;-)  They also do a good job
> > explaining why we need money.
> >
> > [Jay: interesting to look at, might be nice to use some like their
> > comments in the future]
>
> Some of it is just hopeless.
>
> "Why can't they be self sufficient?"  is the sort of question that
> reflects a simple lack of consideration on the part of the asker.  Had
> they considered that question more carefully they would likely have
> answered it themselves.
>
> I.e. that asking for money *is* a form of self-sufficiency no less
> than any other method other than "spending no money at all" (which has
> obvious problems). So then the question is why ask rather than run ads
> or let company X pay for the ability to control the content, etc...
> and many counter arguments to these sorts of alternatives are obvious
> even to people who know nothing of our internals.
>
> Although my own experience is that many Americans are a bit baffled
> that we don't run ads. They've often not even heard the multitude of
> arguments against pervasive/invasive advertising.  I don't believe
> it's Wikimedia's place to argue against advertising, but there might
> be an opportunity for some of our community members to work with
> anti-consumerist groups like Adbusters to make a public argument as to
> why our current lack of advertisements is laudable from their
> perspective.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Dan Collins  wrote:
> > Wait. Is donating supposed to make the banner go away?
> > Because it didn't...
>
> Why would it? You can collapse it even without donating.
>
> (Or log in and make it vanish entirely with the gadget— the reason for
> it to not vanish entirely on collapse is that a lot of people will
> collapse then decide they want to donate later…)
>
> Though I suppose that might not be a bad feature, but on the other
> hand… we're not trying to hold people for ransom. You shouldn't have
> to pay to dispel the notice, requiring that wouldn't reflect
> Wikimedia's or our communities values well.
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Question about status of access in mainland China

[effe iets anders]

Hi,

thanks, but could you please clarify? Is it again Blocked (and is not
accassible) or is it UNblocked (so you can visit it right now)? Sorry, it's
a little confusing :)

Thanks,

Lodewijk

2008/12/16 shi zhao 

> BBC Chinese agian unblocked..
>
> 2008/12/17 Michael Snow 
>
> > I see that the BBC reports their Chinese language site is again blocked
> > in China. They mention some other sites but nothing about Wikipedia.
> > Could anyone summarize what the current situation is for accessing
> > Wikipedia there? Especially zh.wikipedia.org, of course, but also other
> > languages.
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/
> My blog: http://talk.blogbus.com
> twitter: http://twitter.com/shizhao
>
> [[zh:User:Shizhao]]
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: October 2008

[effe iets anders]

Nice page. But could you perhaps also list the non-free software used there
sometime, so that the community could suggest otherwise? :)

2008/12/15 Erik Moeller 

> 2008/12/14 effe iets anders :
> > But also have a small additional suggestion. Would it be nice to the
> > chapters to have somewhere a list of all major software WMF is using? As
> a
> > suggestion list? For example, GIMP for promotional images editing etc, so
> > that the chapters have an easier time looking for free software on
> > accounting etc. Would be great!
>
> I started a page for this purpose a while ago:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FLOSS-Exchange
>
> We have a mixed Mac/Linux office environment. We're not currently
> using open source software for accounting and for more complex design
> work. Most calendaring is done via Google right now.
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: October 2008

[effe iets anders]

Hi Sue,

thanks for the report. I was already looking out for it! :) I'd like to join
in with Florences question.

But also have a small additional suggestion. Would it be nice to the
chapters to have somewhere a list of all major software WMF is using? As a
suggestion list? For example, GIMP for promotional images editing etc, so
that the chapters have an easier time looking for free software on
accounting etc. Would be great!

Thanks a lot,

Lodewijk

2008/12/14 Florence Devouard 

> Sue Gardner wrote:
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > Here is the RTTB for October. November will follow soon :-)
> >
> > Enjoy!
> > Sue
> >
> >
> > Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> >
> > Covering:  October 2008
> > Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
> > Prepared for:   Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> >
> > MY CURRENT PRIORITIES
> >
> > 1. Planning for Bangalore and Davos trips
> > 2. Finalization of staff goals and performance check-ins
> > 3. Planning for development of the strategic plan
> > 4. Ongoing major donor solicitation and stewardship, foundation proposal
> > follow-up
> > 5. Bits and pieces (all-staff meeting, CPO recruitment, Wikimania 2008
> > postmortem, office space revamp, Board Nominating Committee, etc.)
> >
> > THIS PAST MONTH
> >
> > BOARD MEETING
> >
> > The Board met the first weekend of October at the WMF offices in San
> > Francisco, with all Board members in attendance.  During the meeting, the
> > Board reviewed and approved the Gift Policy and Privacy Policy. As
> always,
> > these are posted at:
> >
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies
> >
> > Treasurer Stuart West presented an update on the audit, informing the
> Board
> > that the audit is progressing much more quickly than last year, and that
> the
> > Board will receive the financial statements within a few weeks.
>  Vice-Chair
> > Jan-Bart de Vreede made a presentation on Open Standards and a discussion
> > was held about file formats.
> >
> > Discussions were also held about Advisory Board and Board development,
> and
> > the formation of sub-national chapters. Erik Moeller gave updates and
> > answered questions regarding Wikimedia's technology priorities, and the
> > online fundraiser.  Minutes from the July meeting were approved.
> >
> > The minutes of the October meeting will be approved and published
> following
> > the next board meeting, in January.
> >
> > FUNDRAISING AND GRANTS
> >
> > Extensive work was done by all departments on fine-tuning the various
> > components of the Annual Campaign in preparation for the  launch the
> first
> > week of November:
> >
> > * Further testing and development of the CiviCRM donor database,
> including
> > e-mail capabilities – for the first time, we've got automated e-mail
> thank
> > yous set up for all donors
> > * Development of campaign management tools for sitenotice deployment,
> such
> > as scheduling and weighting of different sitenotices
> > * Lining up external support by design and PR firms; producing the first
> > sitenotices; developing audio PSAs
> > * Identifying core messages that need to be translated and coordinating
> > volunteer translations
> > * Streamlining and documenting all fundraising related procedures, such
> as
> > donor thank-yous
> > * Developing a fundraising agreement between WMF and the chapters which
> want
> > to participate in the online fundraiser
> > * Investigating historical PayPal data that hasn't been imported into the
> > database
> > * Inviting past $1000+ donors to make leadership gifts prior to the
> > beginning of the 2008 fundraiser.
> >
> > For the first time, the online fundraiser is led and coordinated by a
> > dedicated staff member, Rand Montoya.
> >
> > We followed up on leads from the Funders' Briefings in September,
> including
> > people who could not attend the briefings.
> >
> > There were 935 donations made in the month of October for a total of USD
> > 65,503.32
> >
> > OUTREACH
> >
> > Frank Schulenburg worked with the Argentinian chapter to finalize plans
> for
> > the first Wikipedia Academy in Buenos Aires, to be held in early
> November.
> >  Frank also spoke at the FSCONS conference in Gothenburg, Sweden and
> > supported Wikimedia Germany's Zedler Medal article writing award as well
> as
> > the Quadriga Award ceremony.
> >
> > Frank also participated in a dedicated meeting/conference where the
> current
> > state of Wikimedia was discussed among Wikipedians and
> > academics:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Siggen
> >
> > Sue spoke at conferences in Florida and Germany, and met with the Knight
> > Foundation in Florida.
> >
> > SOS Children UK, in coordination with the Wikimedia Foundation, released
> a
> > complete 2008/9 revision of the Wikipedia Selection for Schools, which is
> > perhaps the most successful "checked content" project derived from the
> > English Wikipedia.
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/2008-9_Selection_f

Re: [Foundation-l] board minutes

[effe iets anders]

Hi all,

Yes, I know that in large organizations it is uncommon to approve minutes by
email. I however see no fundamental obstacles myself, but I'd love to hear
from them if they are there. Please note that "commonness" is no argument to
me in this case. I understand how we got to the current situation, but that
is not what I want to discuss. I'd like to discuss a change in that
situation :)

It is about minutes, not about opinions. The only thing that should be
judged while publishing is 1) whether they reflect the truth and 2) whether
there is anything in there that should remain non-disclosed. Both can in
principle perfectly be considered by email imho.

A summary is something, but personally I prefer the real resolutions and
minutes :) In general they are not too extensive anyway in this
organization.

And, as Thomas pointed out, this *is* an unusual organization. Not only are
there many volunteers, but there are also a lot of chapters who are
dependent in some way of these resolutions. These can influence their
functioning quite a lot, and only recieve the minutes together with the
general public. But of course, again, if there are heavy arguments not to do
this, I'd love to hear of them :)

Thank you Ting, for taking it to the board. I hope that in the future, the
community and chapters can more actively participate in the movement :)

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2008/12/14 Ting Chen 

> The chair of the board, Michael, had posted the topics before the
> meeting and a short report about resolutions and issues discussed after
> the meeting.
>
> Ting
>
> Anthony wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 5:49 AM, effe iets anders
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> From Sue's report, I understood that the current practice is to have
> board
> >> minutes approved only on the next board meeting. In practice that means
> a
> >> delay of several months. In a quickly changing world as ours, that is
> quite
> >> a long time span.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That's a fairly standard practice.  How would you approve the minutes
> > without holding a meeting?  (Sure, you could do it using a unanimous
> consent
> > resolution, but that's certainly not typical.)
> >
> > Would it be possible to decrease this time span somehow, and approve the
> >
> >> minutes on an earlier moment? In that way, the volunteers can be kept
> more
> >> up to date, the board would work more transparently and better ways to
> >> interact and react on decisions made. Because if minutes are published
> >> months afterwards, the motivation to read them and react on it is
> obviously
> >> much lower then when they actually still have a direct meaning and are
> more
> >> or less recent. Besides that, if the community has imput on the
> decisions
> >> made, they could give it, and it could be discussed in that next board
> >> meeting, and not only the one after that (delay 6 months).
> >>
> >> I sincerely hope the board will find a way to publish the minutes
> within,
> >> say, two weeks to a month :)
> >>
> >
> >
> > Publishing a draft of the minutes (or an informal summary of the meeting)
> > would be one thing.  Approving the official minutes is quite another.
> >
> > Are the meetings considered confidential?  If not, there's nothing
> stopping
> > any board member from providing a summary at any time.  If so, well, then
> > why publish the minutes in the first place?
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] board minutes

[effe iets anders]

>From Sue's report, I understood that the current practice is to have board
minutes approved only on the next board meeting. In practice that means a
delay of several months. In a quickly changing world as ours, that is quite
a long time span.

Would it be possible to decrease this time span somehow, and approve the
minutes on an earlier moment? In that way, the volunteers can be kept more
up to date, the board would work more transparently and better ways to
interact and react on decisions made. Because if minutes are published
months afterwards, the motivation to read them and react on it is obviously
much lower then when they actually still have a direct meaning and are more
or less recent. Besides that, if the community has imput on the decisions
made, they could give it, and it could be discussed in that next board
meeting, and not only the one after that (delay 6 months).

I sincerely hope the board will find a way to publish the minutes within,
say, two weeks to a month :)

Best regards,

Lodewijk
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Site notice suggestion needed.

[effe iets anders]

Making the internet not suck || Donate now.

2008/12/5 Erik Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 2008/12/5 Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I think this is really fantastic, by the way.  The "educating the
> > world" has a lot of resonance for me and people that I talk with about
> > Wikipedia.
>
> How about:
>
> 11 million articles
> 150,000 volunteers
> Your faith in humanity
> ->
> Donate now
>
> ;-)
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Site notice suggestion needed.

[effe iets anders]

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm

More then 10 billion page views per month... (or 3900 page views per second)

Lodewijk

2008/12/5 Pharos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> "14 articles on famous cows"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_cattle
>
> That's still gotta be way more than Britannica.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Pharos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> "2,434 articles on people born in 1908"
> >>
> >> Ha!
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1908_births
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Richard
> >>
> >>
> > "347 articles on internet memes"
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_memes
> >
> > -Chad
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Site notice suggestion needed.

[effe iets anders]

What about the total number of edits? Does anyone know that number? And I
mean for *all* language versions together. Assuming an avg 10 edits/article:

110 million edits
to write 11 million articles
//
6 million dollar (or the actual current needed number)
to keep Wikimedia running


Free Access
to the sum of knowledge
//
Donate now

(xx pages of) free information
you can edit
//
Donate now

Free knowledge
No commercials
//
donate now

Lodewijk

2008/12/5 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 2008/12/5 Finn Rindahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > 2 million images?? There's currently
> > 3,589,050 freely
> > usable<
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
> >media
> > files at Wikimedia Commons...
>
>
> Whatever, pick a number :-D
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] GFDL 1.3 Release

[effe iets anders]

Hi Erik,

thanks for your update. Sorry for not waiting for the FAQ, but could you
shortly mention to whom this proposal will be directed? The Board or the
Community?

Lodewijk

2008/12/2 Erik Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 2008/11/3 Erik Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > More information will follow later this month as we develop the
> > re-licensing proposal. Let me know if you have any immediate
> > questions.
>
> A brief update - Mike drafted an FAQ which we're going to release very
> soon, and hopefully we'll be able to put together the full proposal
> before the new year.
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] 80% of our projects are failing

[effe iets anders]

Please, speak for yourself :) I *do* care, and if there is an easy and
definite solution, I'd love to embrace it. I think we should care about our
little siblings, about the smaller languages as we call them, and support
them if possible. I can only hope you were being extremely ironic :)

Because bear in mind, especially in those languages, a complemented work of
human knowledge really adds something. In the large languages, we already
had encyclopediae and dictionaries of good quality. Wikipedia is better
sure, and has improved our lives. But now just imagine that you are living
in Botswana, and on school (if you're lucky) there is very little material
available... and now there is an encyclopedia... In YOUR language! Even if
it only contains 1000 articles, you can already learn a lot from it. You can
improve your knowledge, and increase the odds in competition with the
western world. It won't do miracles of course, but every tiny little bit
helps.

And now imagine that this goes for all languages. And not only
encyclopediae, but also learning books, dictionaries and perhaps one day
even other collections. Wikipedia *does* make a difference. (and I'd almost
add: donate now ;-) )

Best regards,

Lodewijk

2008/11/30 Christiano Moreschi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
>  Do we care that 80%
> > of our projects are failing?
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
>
> No. Why should we? Nobody actually reads shit like the albanian wikibooks
> (doesn't matter if that doesn't exist, you get my point). Such projects
> exist purely the monomaniacal benefit of the editor(s), not any readers. Let
> them all fail, with the exception of Wikipedias en,fr,de,ru,etc + wikt and
> commons.
>
> CM
>
> _
> See the most popular videos on the web
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Trouble in Ireland

[effe iets anders]

As Michael Bimmler suggested, I think too that wikien-l would be more
appropriate. This is an English Wikipedia issue, not a Wikimedia issue.

BR, Lodewijk

2008/11/26 Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On 26 Nov 2008, at 13:27, Casey Brown wrote:
>
> > There's a place on enwp called the "administrators noticeboard", you
> > can bring this up there. 
>
> It's already there, at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Ireland_page_moves
>  but most Admins seem to want to stay far away from this.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] European Commission Green Paper - Copyright in the Knowledge Economy

[effe iets anders]

I am so glad that as soon as someone pops up with some text when asked for
it, that the positive reactions are so overwhelming :) Anyway, the
translation has been proofread, feel free to use etc as explained.

Lodewijk

2008/11/16 effe iets anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for sharing this. Wikimedia Nederland is working on a reaction which
> has been draft-translated into English as well. We were invited by the Dutch
> ministry of legal affairs to give our view on this green paper, to be taken
> into account for the national government reaction. We have done this[1],
> attended an informal meeting at the ministry with other stakeholder
> organisations and were included in the national reaction as well.
>
> We are still working on a reply of our own as well. It will be in Dutch,
> companied by an English translation. We have already invited all the other
> chapters to send in the translation or a translation of the translation (in
> French, Hungarian or Swedish etc) themselves. Even though the odds are small
> that the EC will actually listen to us, the consequences are of such serious
> nature that we should definitely do whatever we can to help this process
> ahead in a positive direction.
>
> You can find the draft reaction and translation of that reaction on the
> website of Wikimedia Nederland. The draft [2] (Dutch) has been written after
> the meeting at the ministry by some great Wikimedians (Thanks Elly, Esther,
> Fruggo, Jose, Marco, Wutsje and others :) ) and is now draft-translated into
> English[3]. If you can wait until thursday you can use it under one little
> condition: let us know what you do with it :). That is necessary for the
> motivation of the volunteers who worked on it, as you might understand :)
>
> We also informed other stakeholder institutions such as CC NL, Stichting
> Copyright en Nieuwe Media, Free Knowledge Institute and FSF-Europe. I know
> from the Stichting Copyright en Nieuwe Media that they have sent in a reply,
> and CC NL and FKI were considering. Unfortunately I heard nothing back from
> FSFE.
>
> Copyright is a tough thing, and sometimes, not so often, you have a chance
> to change it in a *positive* way. However, it is also an opportunity for
> Walt Disney and other copyright holder organisations to try and extend. So
> we all might have to step up, and do our best. I don't know how receiving
> the EC is towards replies from individuals, but it might definitely be good
> to have organisations sign this piece, and send it in! If your chapter is
> not working on it, approach the board, and ask them whether they want to do
> it, see if you can help them with this hard task.
>
> Bare in mind, the deadline is on November 30.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lodewijk Gelauff
> (board member WMNL)
>
> ps: if you would have read our chapter report two months ago, you would
> have known this all already ;-) Join the chapter report-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/chapters-reports (no
> discussion there, only reports coming in monthly)
>
> [1]: http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Groep_Groenboek/en/Consultation
> [2]: http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Groep_Groenboek/Reactie
> [3]: http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Groep_Groenboek/en/Reaction
>
> 2008/11/14 teun spaans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Agree.
>>
>>
>> And perhaps other organizations working with copy left licenses could be
>> informed?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Teofilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > The European Commission published in July a "Green Paper - Copyright
>> > in the Knowledge Economy" (1) .
>> >
>> > In §3.4. They talk about the possibility to adapt copyright law so
>> > that user-created contents would become easier, and they ask to send
>> > them feedback by 30 November 2008 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
>> >
>> > I thought it would be kind of cool if the foundation or the individual
>> > european chapters would use this opportunity to give them some hints
>> > of what a Wikipedia-friendly copyright law/directive should look like,
>> > or a few concrete examples of the worries we are having in present
>> > time with the current laws. In particular it should be stressed how
>> > laws in some country lacking a "fair use" restriction for pictures
>> > and/or without a "panorama freedom" are cumbersome. Non copyright
>> > issues like the ltalian law on cultural goods should also be
>> > mentioned.
>> >
>> > I am sending the same message on the village pump on Commons :
>> >
>> >
>> http://commons.wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] mo.wikipedia.org

[effe iets anders]

Now you really dont sound like a nationalist, nor do you give the impression
of being non-neutral, right? I think you clearly show why no hasty decisions
should be made :)

Lodewijk

2008/11/22 Cetateanu Moldovanu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I think we, the independent and the democratic Moldova country have more
> rights to be bound to the Moldovian language than to Transnistria,
> internationally unrecognized who are ruled by russian army ("A 1,200-strong
> Russian military contingent is present in Transnistria").
>
> I'm asking just to rename the current mo to mo-cyrillic.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The people in Transnistra do not consider themselves bound by the
> Moldovian
> > constitution. Also the name of a language and the name of a country are
> not
> > necessarily related.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > 2008/11/22 Cetateanu Moldovanu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Yes, "all the people of Moldova", because the script of Moldovan
> language
> > > is
> > > defined in our constitution (article 13 
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070505191536/xiv.parlament.md/en/legalfoundation/constitution/t1/
> > > ),
> > > and here and now I'm doing nothing more than repeating that to you.
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2008/11/22 Cetateanu Moldovanu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > I'm sorry to see you people to not understand at all the problem,
> > this
> > > > > problem doesn't have anything in common with serbian-croatian or
> > > > > israelic-arabic issues.
> > > > > The problem is what we changed our script, and we want this to be
> > > > reflected
> > > > > on your mo.wikipedia
> > > >
> > > > "We" means you and who?
> > > >
> > > > Think twice before you say "all the people of Moldova".
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Amir Elisha Aharoni
> > > >
> > > > heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng:
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > > > cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus:
> > http://amire80.livejournal.com
> > > >
> > > > "We're living in pieces,
> > > >  I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] wikipedia.de shut down

[effe iets anders]

for the interested: *Keine weiteren juristischen Schritte gegen Wikipedia*
: http://www.lutz-heilmann.info/

2008/11/16 Magnus Manske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Bryan Tong Minh
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Apparently the German portal on wikipedia.de has been shut down after
> > a legal case. Is there any more information on this?
> > http://www.wikipedia.de/
>
> Apparently, some German communist politician was angry about something
> in "his" article, so he got a court order to prevent forwarding from
> wikipedia.de to de.wikipedia.org.
>
> On his web page, above politician now says he won't proceed further
> against the German chapter (who owns wikipedia.de), which might mean
> the forwarding can be reestablished soon.
>
> Magnus
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] List Syndication Service reboot

[effe iets anders]

who!

2008/11/16 phoebe ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hi ya'll,
>
> You may remember way that back in mid-2006 user:Improv started up the
> List Syndication Service:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS
>
> This was an ongoing weekly summary of the mailing lists, particularly
> Foundation-L. It was carried on for a good while by Improv and was
> then taken on by BirgetteSB, but was dropped in early 2007 and not
> picked back up.
>
> I always thought this was a great idea that should be continued. And
> so finally, I've taken a stab at recreating and rebooting LSS:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/foundation-l-archives/2008_November_2-15
>
> This update covers from November 2-15 (two weeks, Sun. to Sat.) of
> Foundation-L. I've made some changes from previous summarizers:
> * summary by topic, not date; related threads grouped together
> * no attempt to read and distill the content of posts -- instead
> simply noting what topics were discussed. It was the heavy burden of
> reading and understanding all the (quite complex) threads on the lists
> that I believe led previous summarizers to burn out. For this summary,
> if you want to know more, you have to read the threads yourself.
>
> I hope that this will prove helpful in pointing out *what* was
> discussed, particularly for people who don't have time to read the
> whole list, even if the substance isn't there.
>
> I make no promises, but will attempt to keep up with foundation-l for
> a while. Suggestions, feedback, helpers, etc. all welcome.
>
> best,
> -- phoebe
>
>
> --
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
>  gmail.com *
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] European Commission Green Paper - Copyright in the Knowledge Economy

[effe iets anders]

It doesn't really matter what was on their mind, even though I also disagree
on what is on their mind. It matters that the discussion has been broken
open, and that it will be on the agenda of the commission and after that the
parliament. If it is on the agenda, it is time for a little lobby and try to
push *our* points, and let not the discussion be focused on potential 70->90
issues. So there are two reasons even to be involved. To push positive
points, and to prevent negative changes.

Lodewijk

2008/11/15 geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 2008/11/15 Gerard Meijssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hoi,
> > When the EU develops a law that deals with copyright and licensing, it
> will
> > implicitly include "Free" licenses.
>
> EU backed laws have tended towards incidental hostility to free licenses.
>
> >It is exactly for this reason that
> > communities like ours who have at least an idea of what we consider to be
> > the right way forward are asked to step on the plate. When we, as a
> > community, do not engage in this request for comments, it is our own damn
> > fault when the result is not to our liking.
> >
> > This green paper PROVES that they are actively involved in this area.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
>
> Nope the paper was written with youtube in mind not freely licensed media.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] European Commission Green Paper - Copyright in the Knowledge Economy

[effe iets anders]

nonsense. There are (small list):

* Creative Commons, dozens of chapters
* Wikimedia, several chapters
* Free Knowledge institute
* Open Office
* Several Linux organisations
* Actually *any* organisation that makes on a large scale freely licensed
manuals etc
* Open Streetmap
* Several libraries (although not directly using, they are on our side
often)
* Free Software Foundation (Europe)
* Several foundations on a more national level such as Vrijschrift and
Stichting Copyright en Nieuwe Media in the Netherlands
and many more...

Lodewijk

2008/11/14 geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> 2008/11/14 teun spaans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Agree.
> >
> > And perhaps other organizations working with copy left licenses could be
> > informed?
>
>
> There is nothing in there of any real significance to free licenses.
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] European Commission Green Paper - Copyright in the Knowledge Economy

[effe iets anders]

Hi all,

Thanks for sharing this. Wikimedia Nederland is working on a reaction which
has been draft-translated into English as well. We were invited by the Dutch
ministry of legal affairs to give our view on this green paper, to be taken
into account for the national government reaction. We have done this[1],
attended an informal meeting at the ministry with other stakeholder
organisations and were included in the national reaction as well.

We are still working on a reply of our own as well. It will be in Dutch,
companied by an English translation. We have already invited all the other
chapters to send in the translation or a translation of the translation (in
French, Hungarian or Swedish etc) themselves. Even though the odds are small
that the EC will actually listen to us, the consequences are of such serious
nature that we should definitely do whatever we can to help this process
ahead in a positive direction.

You can find the draft reaction and translation of that reaction on the
website of Wikimedia Nederland. The draft [2] (Dutch) has been written after
the meeting at the ministry by some great Wikimedians (Thanks Elly, Esther,
Fruggo, Jose, Marco, Wutsje and others :) ) and is now draft-translated into
English[3]. If you can wait until thursday you can use it under one little
condition: let us know what you do with it :). That is necessary for the
motivation of the volunteers who worked on it, as you might understand :)

We also informed other stakeholder institutions such as CC NL, Stichting
Copyright en Nieuwe Media, Free Knowledge Institute and FSF-Europe. I know
from the Stichting Copyright en Nieuwe Media that they have sent in a reply,
and CC NL and FKI were considering. Unfortunately I heard nothing back from
FSFE.

Copyright is a tough thing, and sometimes, not so often, you have a chance
to change it in a *positive* way. However, it is also an opportunity for
Walt Disney and other copyright holder organisations to try and extend. So
we all might have to step up, and do our best. I don't know how receiving
the EC is towards replies from individuals, but it might definitely be good
to have organisations sign this piece, and send it in! If your chapter is
not working on it, approach the board, and ask them whether they want to do
it, see if you can help them with this hard task.

Bare in mind, the deadline is on November 30.

Best regards,

Lodewijk Gelauff
(board member WMNL)

ps: if you would have read our chapter report two months ago, you would have
known this all already ;-) Join the chapter report-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/chapters-reports (no discussion
there, only reports coming in monthly)

[1]: http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Groep_Groenboek/en/Consultation
[2]: http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Groep_Groenboek/Reactie
[3]: http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Groep_Groenboek/en/Reaction

2008/11/14 teun spaans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Agree.
>
> And perhaps other organizations working with copy left licenses could be
> informed?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Teofilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The European Commission published in July a "Green Paper - Copyright
> > in the Knowledge Economy" (1) .
> >
> > In §3.4. They talk about the possibility to adapt copyright law so
> > that user-created contents would become easier, and they ask to send
> > them feedback by 30 November 2008 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
> >
> > I thought it would be kind of cool if the foundation or the individual
> > european chapters would use this opportunity to give them some hints
> > of what a Wikipedia-friendly copyright law/directive should look like,
> > or a few concrete examples of the worries we are having in present
> > time with the current laws. In particular it should be stressed how
> > laws in some country lacking a "fair use" restriction for pictures
> > and/or without a "panorama freedom" are cumbersome. Non copyright
> > issues like the ltalian law on cultural goods should also be
> > mentioned.
> >
> > I am sending the same message on the village pump on Commons :
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#European_Commission_Green_Paper_-_Copyright_in_the_Knowledge_Economy
> >
> >
> > (1)
> >
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0466:FIN:EN:HTML
> >  (English)
> >
> > Other languages are available here :
> >
> >
> http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008DC0466:FR:NOT
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailm