Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
John Vandenberg wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: I have no idea of the en.ws situation, nor do I want to have any idea, but I would like to remark that leaving such things to the community decision is a good idea only if the community itself is big enough. Otherwise, it is easy for a group of individuals, or even for an individual to introduce their own rules which may be incompatible with the general purposes of the project. In this case, an external help may be needed. For instance, this is what happened a year ago on ru.wb when the only admin has been desysopped after it has been discovered and reported on this very list that he arbitrarily abused and blocked other users and removed edits. Again, I am not really aware of the situation on en.ws, I have no idea whether this project is big enough to solve their own problems within the project, and I do not want to make any statements about any users over there. (As a matter of fact, I never logged in to en.ws). I just wanted to say that not every project is capable with solving its own problems. I agree with this. English Wikisource does not have a mediation framework, and I didnt participate in that desysop discussion as much as I should have, due to time constraints. The next step would be a meta RFC, or something like an offwiki discussion. I am happy to participate in something like that if it would help. I am amenable to a solution of this sort. What I will say now is that Eclecticology is a great contributor to the English Wikisource project, and I hope he continues to be. The main project that he has been working on, [[s:Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900]], has been exempt from the structure imposed on the rest of the project, as a way of reducing the tensions. Fair enough, and while continuing work on that project, I have seen fit to limit my insistence on broadly applying my viewof the disputed structure. I still believe that my approach is a better one, but have for some time already taken the approach that that can best be exhibited by essentially limiting my approach to one encyclopedic work and one periodical [[s:McClure's Magazine]]. In part, it was to reduce tensions, but there was a recognition that I had a limited amount of time for working at it. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
Birgitte SB wrote: Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on Meta for anything remotely like this situation. And I would say that if were regarding any wiki (I am sure I have said that for similar situations on other wikis in the past). The wikis are autonomous on these issues. If someone has reason why en.WS adminship rules are incompatible with the general purposes of the project, then please share. Otherwise discuss in the proper forum which is en.WS. I have since the very beginning been a strong supporter of project autonomy, and have usually been very critical of anyone who tries to impose the rules of other projects in Wikisource. Last summer, when another de-sysop process happened, I also spoke strongly against allowing ourselves to be overly influenced by that person's overly bad behaviour on other projects; I conservatively concurred with what happened based solely on events at wikisource. In the course of the discussion about me, I considered coming here at an early stage, but decided that I would let things play out on wiki first. I did not raise the issue here until a few days after the decision was closed and implemented. If I had not commented on events here, would you have noticed it, and would it even have crossed your mind to comment as you did above? Given the still relatively small community at en:ws, where does one turn for a calmer and more objective analysis from someone who is not a part of the apparent piling on? If the result of raising the issue here is a fairer discussion on wiki, I can't complain about that. There should always be a place for off-wiki safety valves. I see that you have asked a question on my talk page, so I will address more specific matters there shortly. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: A question about Attribution survey and licensing next steps
-- Forwarded message -- From: Dirk hun...@iis.sinica.edu.tw Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:58:07 +0800 Subject: A question about Attribution survey and licensing next steps To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org What is your purpose on this statistics? Can you explain it for me? I saw a news about your ranking on CC web site I can not understand why you choose those six options and what each means Sincerely Dirk No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1988 - Release Date: 2009/3/6 ?? 07:17 -- Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: 2009/3/11 geni geni...@gmail.com: Importing wikipedia content would be an absolute pain Why? The language doesn't require you to include a full list of authors. Only if you want your copy to be a link-creditable copy, you would need to do so. Does that mean the link has to be to the history page? Is everything at the same domain name considered part of the alternative online copy? I think I understand what you're getting at (link to something equivalent to Wikipedia), but that's not what it says. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: January 2009 (fwd)
Resending Sue Gardner's report for January, for the list archive. I really like to be able to link to it. (Sue, you have a habit of starting paragraphs with From and this bug is still there.) -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:03:53 -0700 From: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: January 2009 Report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Covering: January 2009 Prepared by:Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation Prepared for: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees MY CURRENT PRIORITIES 1. World Economic Forum at Davos 2. Annual fundraising campaign wrap-up 3. January board meeting 4. Stanton Usability project starts up 5. Bits and pieces: normal fundraising activities, grant proposal development, strategic plan, etc. THIS PAST MONTH JANUARY BOARD MEETING On January 9-11, the Board of Trustees met at the Wikimedia Foundation office in San Francisco. Agenda items included: a recap of the success of the online fundraiser; a financial update recapping the basics of the 2008-09 annual plan and informing the Board that the organization is on track to meet its targets; an overview of the proposed plan for achieving resolution on the license migration issue; a walk-through of changes to the Form 990, coming next year; presentation of a resolution requiring people bound by the Conflict of Interest policy to update their statements annually; presentation of a resolution to approve the establishment of a new Citibank account in France; a general discussion of the time and travel commitment for board members; presentation of resolutions to recognize Wikimedia NYC as Wikimedia's first sub-national chapter, and to recognize Wiki UK Limited as a chapter; presentation of the minutes of the October board meeting and the November IRC board meeting; a discussion of the collaborative strategy development process requested of Sue by the Board; a review of the role of the Ombudsman commission and the appointment of new members; an evaluation and revamp of Wikimedia Board-created committees; an update on the status of the hiring of the Chief Program Officer; an executive session; a wide-ranging conversation with a potential new Advisory Board member; an update on the activity of the Nominating Committee, and a presentation of comScore Media Metrix data. The minutes of the January 9-11 Board of Trustees meeting are expected to be released within a month or two. WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM -From January 27 to February 1, Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The main goals of the trip were to present a proposal to a potential funder, increase awareness of Wikipedia as a charity among WEF attendees, and actively move forward relationships with a few key major donor prospects. Sue was also able to meet briefly in Zurich with Board members of the Swiss chapter. It was a successful trip, with all major goals met, and is fully documented in a report to the Board of Trustees, distributed to foundation-l on February 3. For further details, please see that report. LICENSE MIGRATION On January 21, Erik Moeller and Mike Godwin published a proposal for Wikimedia projects to migrate from the GFDL to CC-BY-SA, in order to achieve greater legal compatibility with existing free educational content, and to simplify and clarify the obligations of re-users. The proposal invites all Wikimedia project contributors who have made at least 10 edits prior to January 12, 2009, to participate in the decision of whether to migrate. The vote will be made through an implementation of the Board election software, and will be securely administered by a third party. The proposal is here http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update. The vote is planned to be held before April. COLLABORATIVE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Earlier in 2008, Michael Snow had asked Sue to begin designing a heavily community-consultative process for development of a three-to-five-year strategic plan for Wikimedia. The goals of the strategy development process: 1) To develop a better shared understanding inside Wikimedia regarding where we're collectively headed, and 2) To enable us to communicate our goals more clearly to external stakeholders, partners and the general public, so they can join us in helping reach them. This would be a highly unusual, volunteer-centric process, which would pose unique challenges, and create unique opportunities to innovate. At the Board meeting in January, Sue presented an early-stage draft proposal. The Board endorsed the work done thus far, and asked Sue to continue evolving the plan, including beginning to work through timing and resourcing. FUNDRAISING AND GRANTS During January, the Wikimedia Foundation wrapped up its annual giving campaign for 2008-09: the
Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
I have refrained from commenting in the interests of letting this play out but find myself in disagreement with our worthy colleague from Wikisource. The locus of this complaint, as I see it, is that he was unfairly removed from his position. I see no merit in his claims for the following reason and believe this thread should be killed for the following reasons. We have traditionally allowed each community to set up its own principles. Meta level intervention in a project, barring blatant illegality, is unprecedented and would indicate a significant departure from our bottom up ideology. As administrators are appointed/elected volunteers serving according to project rules, rather than formal employees, it is impossible for there to be any illegality in dismissal. There is therefore a considerable precedent not to interfere, which would be detrimental to our ideological foundation. Unlike Wikipedia, adminiship is held for terms of one year. Mr. Saintonge has not disputed the validity of this process, therefore I am not going to examine it. However, I do wish to commend the authors of the policy as it is a functional and easily readable document. Upon review of the Restricted Access Policy, I see the following statement, However, anyone is free to discuss. Therefore, the attempt to strike the comments by John and Pathoschild seem to be attempts at stifling criticism. Each user has the right and ability to present their concerns, no matter how oddball they are. I can only see evidence from Pathoschild, which clearly proves the allegations made. The allegations are without a reasonable doubt, true for pathoschild's case. Since the comments supporting dismissal referenced pathoschild's allegations, there is no reason to consider them misled. For these reasons, there were no errors in the proceeding. Finally the process is based on whether or not people trust Mr. Saintonge as an admin, not whether he desires to continue. It is readily apparent that there is no trust. For all the above, I move to kill this thread. From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:03:27 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource Birgitte SB wrote: Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on Meta for anything remotely like this situation. And I would say that if were regarding any wiki (I am sure I have said that for similar situations on other wikis in the past). The wikis are autonomous on these issues. If someone has reason why en.WS adminship rules are incompatible with the general purposes of the project, then please share. Otherwise discuss in the proper forum which is en.WS. I have since the very beginning been a strong supporter of project autonomy, and have usually been very critical of anyone who tries to impose the rules of other projects in Wikisource. Last summer, when another de-sysop process happened, I also spoke strongly against allowing ourselves to be overly influenced by that person's overly bad behaviour on other projects; I conservatively concurred with what happened based solely on events at wikisource. In the course of the discussion about me, I considered coming here at an early stage, but decided that I would let things play out on wiki first. I did not raise the issue here until a few days after the decision was closed and implemented. If I had not commented on events here, would you have noticed it, and would it even have crossed your mind to comment as you did above? Given the still relatively small community at en:ws, where does one turn for a calmer and more objective analysis from someone who is not a part of the apparent piling on? If the result of raising the issue here is a fairer discussion on wiki, I can't complain about that. There should always be a place for off-wiki safety valves. I see that you have asked a question on my talk page, so I will address more specific matters there shortly. 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] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
That people on this list can't necessarily interfere or overturn the de-adminship is a point separate from whether or not it can be discussed here. I'm not aware of any hard rules limiting topics of discussion to those issues which can readily be addressed by participants of this forum. Bringing it here may not be all that useful, and further discussion not all that helpful to anyone in particular, but that isn't a justification for killing the thread. I can't see Austin or Michael or whoever else actually killing a civil discussion in any case, so its a moot point really. Also, you may want to reconsider the logic of posting your interpretation and conclusion about events and *then* asking for the thread to be killed. Mods aren't here to provide you with the last word. Nathan On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.comwrote: I have refrained from commenting in the interests of letting this play out but find myself in disagreement with our worthy colleague from Wikisource. The locus of this complaint, as I see it, is that he was unfairly removed from his position. I see no merit in his claims for the following reason and believe this thread should be killed for the following reasons. We have traditionally allowed each community to set up its own principles. Meta level intervention in a project, barring blatant illegality, is unprecedented and would indicate a significant departure from our bottom up ideology. As administrators are appointed/elected volunteers serving according to project rules, rather than formal employees, it is impossible for there to be any illegality in dismissal. There is therefore a considerable precedent not to interfere, which would be detrimental to our ideological foundation. Unlike Wikipedia, adminiship is held for terms of one year. Mr. Saintonge has not disputed the validity of this process, therefore I am not going to examine it. However, I do wish to commend the authors of the policy as it is a functional and easily readable document. Upon review of the Restricted Access Policy, I see the following statement, However, anyone is free to discuss. Therefore, the attempt to strike the comments by John and Pathoschild seem to be attempts at stifling criticism. Each user has the right and ability to present their concerns, no matter how oddball they are. I can only see evidence from Pathoschild, which clearly proves the allegations made. The allegations are without a reasonable doubt, true for pathoschild's case. Since the comments supporting dismissal referenced pathoschild's allegations, there is no reason to consider them misled. For these reasons, there were no errors in the proceeding. Finally the process is based on whether or not people trust Mr. Saintonge as an admin, not whether he desires to continue. It is readily apparent that there is no trust. For all the above, I move to kill this thread. From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:03:27 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource Birgitte SB wrote: Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on Meta for anything remotely like this situation. And I would say that if were regarding any wiki (I am sure I have said that for similar situations on other wikis in the past). The wikis are autonomous on these issues. If someone has reason why en.WS adminship rules are incompatible with the general purposes of the project, then please share. Otherwise discuss in the proper forum which is en.WS. I have since the very beginning been a strong supporter of project autonomy, and have usually been very critical of anyone who tries to impose the rules of other projects in Wikisource. Last summer, when another de-sysop process happened, I also spoke strongly against allowing ourselves to be overly influenced by that person's overly bad behaviour on other projects; I conservatively concurred with what happened based solely on events at wikisource. In the course of the discussion about me, I considered coming here at an early stage, but decided that I would let things play out on wiki first. I did not raise the issue here until a few days after the decision was closed and implemented. If I had not commented on events here, would you have noticed it, and would it even have crossed your mind to comment as you did above? Given the still relatively small community at en:ws, where does one turn for a calmer and more objective analysis from someone who is not a part of the apparent piling on? If the result of raising the issue here is a fairer discussion on wiki, I can't complain about that. There should always be a place for off-wiki safety valves. I see that you have asked a question on my talk page, so I will address more specific matters there shortly. Ec
Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
--- On Thu, 3/12/09, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, March 12, 2009, 3:03 AM Birgitte SB wrote: Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on Meta for anything remotely like this situation. And I would say that if were regarding any wiki (I am sure I have said that for similar situations on other wikis in the past). The wikis are autonomous on these issues. If someone has reason why en.WS adminship rules are incompatible with the general purposes of the project, then please share. Otherwise discuss in the proper forum which is en.WS. I have since the very beginning been a strong supporter of project autonomy, and have usually been very critical of anyone who tries to impose the rules of other projects in Wikisource. Last summer, when another de-sysop process happened, I also spoke strongly against allowing ourselves to be overly influenced by that person's overly bad behaviour on other projects; I conservatively concurred with what happened based solely on events at wikisource. In the course of the discussion about me, I considered coming here at an early stage, but decided that I would let things play out on wiki first. I did not raise the issue here until a few days after the decision was closed and implemented. If I had not commented on events here, would you have noticed it, and would it even have crossed your mind to comment as you did above? I don't follow exactly what you mean. I often comment here that some new thread is an internal issue and not a Foundation one. If you had commented on-wiki, I would have responded there. If you hadn't commented about the situation at all, I wouldn't have commented either. Given the still relatively small community at en:ws, where does one turn for a calmer and more objective analysis from someone who is not a part of the apparent piling on? You can approach community members who were not part of the apparent piling on and ask them for such an analysis. You can ask someone who is not part of the community and that you respect for generally giving calm and objective analysis to share their opinion on en.WS. I am not against people from out of the community helping out with this. I just don't believe either such a wide announcement nor having the opinions being placed outside of en.WS should be encouraged. If the result of raising the issue here is a fairer discussion on wiki, I can't complain about that. There should always be a place for off-wiki safety valves. I see that you have asked a question on my talk page, so I will address more specific matters there shortly. Ec Thank you for bringing the specifics back on-wiki.. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Restoration proposal
Hi all, Since January there has been a proposal at Meta to facilitate image restoration. Support has been nearly unanimous. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Restoration.wikimedia.org To keep the discussion centralized, please post comments or questions to the proposal talk page. Many thanks to the people who are working to make this possible. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
Posting during breaks is a bad idea. I meant kill as in we should stop discussing this as there is no effective remedy, no mod kill intended. From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:29:01 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource That people on this list can't necessarily interfere or overturn the de-adminship is a point separate from whether or not it can be discussed here. I'm not aware of any hard rules limiting topics of discussion to those issues which can readily be addressed by participants of this forum. Bringing it here may not be all that useful, and further discussion not all that helpful to anyone in particular, but that isn't a justification for killing the thread. I can't see Austin or Michael or whoever else actually killing a civil discussion in any case, so its a moot point really. Also, you may want to reconsider the logic of posting your interpretation and conclusion about events and *then* asking for the thread to be killed. Mods aren't here to provide you with the last word. Nathan On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.comwrote: I have refrained from commenting in the interests of letting this play out but find myself in disagreement with our worthy colleague from Wikisource. The locus of this complaint, as I see it, is that he was unfairly removed from his position. I see no merit in his claims for the following reason and believe this thread should be killed for the following reasons. We have traditionally allowed each community to set up its own principles. Meta level intervention in a project, barring blatant illegality, is unprecedented and would indicate a significant departure from our bottom up ideology. As administrators are appointed/elected volunteers serving according to project rules, rather than formal employees, it is impossible for there to be any illegality in dismissal. There is therefore a considerable precedent not to interfere, which would be detrimental to our ideological foundation. Unlike Wikipedia, adminiship is held for terms of one year. Mr. Saintonge has not disputed the validity of this process, therefore I am not going to examine it. However, I do wish to commend the authors of the policy as it is a functional and easily readable document. Upon review of the Restricted Access Policy, I see the following statement, However, anyone is free to discuss. Therefore, the attempt to strike the comments by John and Pathoschild seem to be attempts at stifling criticism. Each user has the right and ability to present their concerns, no matter how oddball they are. I can only see evidence from Pathoschild, which clearly proves the allegations made. The allegations are without a reasonable doubt, true for pathoschild's case. Since the comments supporting dismissal referenced pathoschild's allegations, there is no reason to consider them misled. For these reasons, there were no errors in the proceeding. Finally the process is based on whether or not people trust Mr. Saintonge as an admin, not whether he desires to continue. It is readily apparent that there is no trust. For all the above, I move to kill this thread. From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:03:27 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource Birgitte SB wrote: Sorry but there is no reason to have a RFC on Meta for anything remotely like this situation. And I would say that if were regarding any wiki (I am sure I have said that for similar situations on other wikis in the past). The wikis are autonomous on these issues. If someone has reason why en.WS adminship rules are incompatible with the general purposes of the project, then please share. Otherwise discuss in the proper forum which is en.WS. I have since the very beginning been a strong supporter of project autonomy, and have usually been very critical of anyone who tries to impose the rules of other projects in Wikisource. Last summer, when another de-sysop process happened, I also spoke strongly against allowing ourselves to be overly influenced by that person's overly bad behaviour on other projects; I conservatively concurred with what happened based solely on events at wikisource. In the course of the discussion about me, I considered coming here at an early stage, but decided that I would let things play out on wiki first. I did not raise the issue here until a few days after the decision was closed and implemented. If I had not commented on events here, would you have noticed it, and would it even have crossed your mind to comment as you did above? Given the still relatively small community at en:ws, where does one turn for a calmer and
Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
Biographies of living people bring up legal issues, this matter does not. From: Delirium delir...@hackish.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:05:14 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource Geoffrey Plourde wrote: We have traditionally allowed each community to set up its own principles. Meta level intervention in a project, barring blatant illegality, is unprecedented and would indicate a significant departure from our bottom up ideology. As administrators are appointed/elected volunteers serving according to project rules, rather than formal employees, it is impossible for there to be any illegality in dismissal. There is therefore a considerable precedent not to interfere, which would be detrimental to our ideological foundation. That's not really true at all--- *actual*, direct, overturning of local community decisions is rare, but meta- and foundation-level discussion of general principles and management issues, with a view towards encouraging change on specific wikis, is common and constitutes probably the majority of this list. For example, after the relicensing debate, probably the second-largest debate here is a lengthy meta level intervention in the English Wikipedia's handling of biographies of living people. -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
[Foundation-l] Two new email system team leaders
Hi everyone, I've appointed two new volunteers into the role of email system team leader (commonly known as OTRS admin), Daniel Bryant and Mark Wesbeeg. Daniel is a longtime OTRS agent since March of 2007, an administrator on en.wikipedia, and a bureaucrat on meta. His unified account name is User:Daniel. Mark is an OTRS agent since the beginning of 2008, an administrator on nl.wikipedia, and a board member of Wikimedia NL. Mark's unified account is User:Mwpnl. I'd like to offer my thanks to everyone who expressed interest in applying and hope you all show your support for the two new administrators. Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] phishing with wikipedia?
Should someone handle this? http://www.blackwikipedia.org/ BlackWikipedia is a nonprofit private organization to support WMF, the Foundation working to maintain and develop the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is constantly looking for donors as you can see in the banner top of each wikipedia.org page, in order to support the huge costs of maintenaince and adminsitration. Now it's posible for any user, throught BlackWikipedia, participate supporting WMF, without having to make a donation. ¿How's that possible? Income generated by Black Wikipedia ads, minus the cost of maintenance and administration for servers, will be used by the WMF with ordinary donations. Therefore, each person using BlackWiipedia is directly participating in Wikipedia supporting. That's a translation from http://www.blackwikipedia.org/es/wiki/Portada: Black Wikipedia BlackWikipedia es una organización privada sin fines de lucro para apoyar a la Fundación Wikimedia, la fundación que trabaja para mantener y desarrollar la enciclopedia libre en línea Wikipedia. Wikipedia es constantemente en busca de donaciones, como usted puede ver en el banner que aparece al principio de cada página de wikipedia.org, para apoyar a los enormes costos de mantenimiento y gestión. Ahora es posible para cualquier usuario, a través de BlackWikipedia, participar en apoyo de la Fundación Wikimedia, sin la necesidad de hacer una donación. ¿Cómo es esto posible? Los ingresos generados por anuncios en BlackWikipedia, eliminado el coste de la gestión y mantenimiento de los servidores, serán utilizados por la Fundación Wikimedia con ordinarias donaciones. Por lo tanto, cada persona que utiliza BlackWikipedia están participando directamente en el apoyo de la Wikipedia! Wikipedia es un mirror negro de Wikipedia. La base de datos será reajustado periódicamente a la base de datos de la Wikipedia. Los cambios a los articulos dell'Enciclopedia será ejecutado en la Wikipedia, y entonces se añade a BlackWikipedia durante las actualizaciones periódicas de la base de datos. Also in italian (although very slow page): http://www.blackwikipedia.org/it/wiki/Pagina_principale BlackWikipedia è un'iniziativa privata no profit per sostenere la wikimedia foundation, la fondazione che si occupa di mantenere e sviluppare l'enciclopedia libera online Wikipedia. Wikipedia è alla continua ricerca di donazioni, come si può vedere dal banner che viene visualizzato all'inizio di ogni pagina di wikipedia.org, per poter sostenere le ingenti spese di mantenimento e gestione. Da oggi sarà possibile per qualsiasi utente, tramite Blackwikipedia, partecipare al sostegno della Wikimedia Foundation, senza il bisogno di effettuare una donazione. (...) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
