Re: [Foundation-l] Board position statement
Michael Snow wrote: The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation invites the Wikimedia community to vote on this proposal to license Wikimedia material so it is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC-BY-SA), while retaining dual licensing with the GNU Free Documentation License. The Board has evaluated possible licensing options for Wikimedia material, and believes that this proposal is the best available path towards achieving our collective goal to collect, develop and disseminate educational material, and make it available to people everywhere, free of charge, in perpetuity. To elaborate a little further, speaking now in a personal capacity. Exploring the fine details of copyleft licensing gets into complex issues, some of which we've debated on this list. The complexity means many subtly different positions are possible, and we could probably debate endlessly without reaching ideal solutions to those subtle differences. That's part of why (as mentioned) individual board and staff members, like everyone else, are free and encouraged to express their own views about these matters. By comparison, though, the vote we will have is more simple and straightforward. It's not an effort to create a platonically perfect license in the ideal world, which is likely impossible, rather it's asking whether the relicensing allowed by the GFDL 1.3 is progress in a practical sense. I think that's what we mean in agreeing that this is the best available course at this time. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view
2009/3/23 Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com: But none of this was exactly the concern I raised. My concern was that the TOS proposed for WMF site would restrict authors to using to certain facet of the CC-by-SA license that is not commonly used. This would generally prevent anyone who was not an author from importing externally published CC-by-SA material which likely relies on a more common facet of the license (naming the author by name). This is because such non-authors would have no right to agree to the more restrictive WMF TOS on behalf of authors who simply released their work as CC-by-SA. This is explicitly addressed - the proposed terms do make allowance for content attaching additional attribution requirements; see the section Attribution of externally attributed content in: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update What is and isn't acceptable in terms of additional attribution for external content, and how such attribution should be displayed, is IMO something we need to work out as a community. We don't need to solve every problem in this process; fundamentally what we're trying to do is create a consistent baseline that's understandable and easy to build on. Erik -- 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] Board position statement
Hoi, Where can we vote? Thanks, GerardM 2009/3/24 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net As Sue has mentioned, the board earlier agreed on a statement regarding the license transition, which is as follows: The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation invites the Wikimedia community to vote on this proposal to license Wikimedia material so it is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC-BY-SA), while retaining dual licensing with the GNU Free Documentation License. The Board has evaluated possible licensing options for Wikimedia material, and believes that this proposal is the best available path towards achieving our collective goal to collect, develop and disseminate educational material, and make it available to people everywhere, free of charge, in perpetuity. --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] Board position statement
2009/3/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, Where can we vote? Hi, to clarify: the vote isn't yet open; Michael just posted the Board positioning statement that will be accompanying the vote when it's launched. The key documents have now been finalized and are in the process of being translated. (The key pages are linked from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update ), and the technical setup is in progress. A current working timeline is at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Timeline ; there are some internal and external dependencies where we might slip forward a bit further, but I hope that we can launch and wrap up the vote in April as planned. Thanks to the volunteer licensing committee for all the help so far. Erik -- 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] Divergent Wiktionary logos
Hi all, The two largest Wiktionary projects (English and French) have two completely different logos. [1], [2] The reason for this, from what I understand, is that a vote was taken place about the logo fr.wiktionary currently has, on meta [3]; which the English Wiktionary community chose not to be bound by, because they, as a community, disagreed with the outcome. I understand that there are complaints that new logo has elements too closely resembling Scrabble pieces, or are otherwise too cartooned to some. The new logo does maintain some visual identity as a project logo, while the classic logo isn't really a logo at all, and diverges wildly from project to project. Of the top ten Wiktionary projects, four of them use the new version, while 6 of them use some variation of the classic version: fr: new en: classic tr: new vi: new ru: classic (a variation which little resembles the original) io: classic (English version) el: new zh: classic (divergent variation) pl: classic (divergent variation) fi: classic (English version) As a whole, I seem to remember that Wiktionary is the second most visited site of the Foundation's websites, and I really do think it should be appropriate that the site should reflect a common visual identity, one that the classic logo does a poor job of creating. The new logo, however, met with rather heavy resistance in, at the very least, the English Wiktionary community. I do, rather strongly, believe that the Wiktionary identity needs to be squared away, having some poll in general inclusive of, yet binding of all Wiktionary projects, and then if that fails, starting the process again, and succeeding to foment an individual logo like the recent successful Wikibooks logo revamp. Cary [1] http://en.wiktionary.org [2] http://fr.wiktionary.org [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board position statement
Michael Snow wrote: Robert Horning wrote: I certainly think my voice ought to count for something, together with other people who are in my position and situation. I quite agree with you, and if you check out the licensing update page on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update you'll find that voting eligibility is based on a quite low number of edits, made any time before the cutoff date. Given the nature of the question, we understand that anyone who has a history with us should be able to have input, whether or not they are currently active. Actually, the edit threshold was just changed from 10 to 25 (still pretty low) by Erik, maybe he can explain the thinking behind that, as I wasn't aware of that decision. --Michael Snow In my case, I have several thousand edits on each of multiple projects, although I didn't qualify to vote in the most recent board elections. I'm not necessarily objecting to not being eligible to vote in those elections, but this is a significantly different situation. Thanks for clarifying this point. -- Robert Horning Click for great deals on extra fine men's wedding bands. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYYOxdmpR6YPlZuSmNnqEQijBc3ilnfWxpxkmQCXkc7rEHSVTBjRgk/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
Hi all, Just wanted to second Cary's note - we talked about it briefly today. A single brand identity for the project would be so much stronger, so I encourage discussion on the matter. I completely appreciate the challenges and how things have evolved up to this point, but it would certainly be worth a deeper discussion and resolution. Generally speaking we want to ensure all of the brand identities line up across languages. I'm always impressed by the simple and elegant way the project marks get localized in other languages/scripts but still nicely translate with the visual style. Best, -- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 609 On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Cary Bass wrote: Hi all, The two largest Wiktionary projects (English and French) have two completely different logos. [1], [2] The reason for this, from what I understand, is that a vote was taken place about the logo fr.wiktionary currently has, on meta [3]; which the English Wiktionary community chose not to be bound by, because they, as a community, disagreed with the outcome. I understand that there are complaints that new logo has elements too closely resembling Scrabble pieces, or are otherwise too cartooned to some. The new logo does maintain some visual identity as a project logo, while the classic logo isn't really a logo at all, and diverges wildly from project to project. Of the top ten Wiktionary projects, four of them use the new version, while 6 of them use some variation of the classic version: fr: new en: classic tr: new vi: new ru: classic (a variation which little resembles the original) io: classic (English version) el: new zh: classic (divergent variation) pl: classic (divergent variation) fi: classic (English version) As a whole, I seem to remember that Wiktionary is the second most visited site of the Foundation's websites, and I really do think it should be appropriate that the site should reflect a common visual identity, one that the classic logo does a poor job of creating. The new logo, however, met with rather heavy resistance in, at the very least, the English Wiktionary community. I do, rather strongly, believe that the Wiktionary identity needs to be squared away, having some poll in general inclusive of, yet binding of all Wiktionary projects, and then if that fails, starting the process again, and succeeding to foment an individual logo like the recent successful Wikibooks logo revamp. Cary [1] http://en.wiktionary.org [2] http://fr.wiktionary.org [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Divergent Wiktionary logos
Hello all, this is a very old and often discussed issue, the problems raised with the logo were not yet addressed (such as copyright issues, which characters to use), and the new 'logo' is IMHO the most ugly thing I have ever seen. Btw.: from alexa.com: Where people go on Wiktionary.org: - en.wiktionary.org - 48.6% - old logo - de.wiktionary.org - 12.8% - old logo - fr.wiktionary.org - 9.7% - new logo - ru.wiktionary.org - 3.6% - old logo - es.wiktionary.org - 3.1% - old logo - ja.wiktionary.org - 2.9% - old logo - pl.wiktionary.org - 2.4% - old logo - pt.wiktionary.org - 2.3% - old logo - it.wiktionary.org - 1.6% - new logo - el.wiktionary.org - 1.5% - new logo Guess how many Wiktionarians apprently like the new logo... Best regards, E. 2009/3/25 Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org Hi all, Just wanted to second Cary's note - we talked about it briefly today. A single brand identity for the project would be so much stronger, so I encourage discussion on the matter. I completely appreciate the challenges and how things have evolved up to this point, but it would certainly be worth a deeper discussion and resolution. Generally speaking we want to ensure all of the brand identities line up across languages. I'm always impressed by the simple and elegant way the project marks get localized in other languages/scripts but still nicely translate with the visual style. Best, -- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 609 On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Cary Bass wrote: Hi all, The two largest Wiktionary projects (English and French) have two completely different logos. [1], [2] The reason for this, from what I understand, is that a vote was taken place about the logo fr.wiktionary currently has, on meta [3]; which the English Wiktionary community chose not to be bound by, because they, as a community, disagreed with the outcome. I understand that there are complaints that new logo has elements too closely resembling Scrabble pieces, or are otherwise too cartooned to some. The new logo does maintain some visual identity as a project logo, while the classic logo isn't really a logo at all, and diverges wildly from project to project. Of the top ten Wiktionary projects, four of them use the new version, while 6 of them use some variation of the classic version: fr: new en: classic tr: new vi: new ru: classic (a variation which little resembles the original) io: classic (English version) el: new zh: classic (divergent variation) pl: classic (divergent variation) fi: classic (English version) As a whole, I seem to remember that Wiktionary is the second most visited site of the Foundation's websites, and I really do think it should be appropriate that the site should reflect a common visual identity, one that the classic logo does a poor job of creating. The new logo, however, met with rather heavy resistance in, at the very least, the English Wiktionary community. I do, rather strongly, believe that the Wiktionary identity needs to be squared away, having some poll in general inclusive of, yet binding of all Wiktionary projects, and then if that fails, starting the process again, and succeeding to foment an individual logo like the recent successful Wikibooks logo revamp. Cary [1] http://en.wiktionary.org [2] http://fr.wiktionary.org [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary/logo ___ 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 position statement
2009/3/24 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: Actually, the edit threshold was just changed from 10 to 25 (still pretty low) by Erik, maybe he can explain the thinking behind that, as I wasn't aware of that decision. The only reason to tweak the configuration was to move forward the cut-off date (allowing more users to vote) while excluding any potential sleeper accounts created to specifically hit the 10 edit limit. -- 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] Usability study in progress
Howdy. (adding wikien-l folks to this thread. my apology for not including wikien-l with my initial email.) The usability study has started today as scheduled. The usability team is monitoring the interviews and how ten test participants interact with Wikipedia when they are asked to edit an article at the lab facility in San Francisco today and tomorrow. The remote usability study on Thursday (March 26 PDT) will be done remotely, which means we recruit participants from Wikipedia through the site notice, and connect with them through web conferencing. Therefore the site notice for recruitment will appear again on Thursday. We expect to compile the results in a few weeks and the findings with you. Naoko Komura Program Manager, Wikimedia Foundation Naoko Komura wrote: One of the important components of the usability initiative is to conduct multiple rounds of usability tests. The plan is to conduct at least three rounds of tests for qualitative usability evaluation over the span of twelve months, i) the initial evaluation, ii) the progress evaluation, and iii) the final evaluation. The initial usability test is scheduled on March 24, 25th and 26th. In-person lab tests are conducted in San Francisco at the first two days, and remote tests will be conducted on the third day. As a preparation for the initial usability test, we incorporated the recruiting tool into English Wikipedia's site notice. You might have encountered site notice inviting for the participation. The target audience of testers are Wikipedia readers who have little or no experience in editing the Wikipedia articles. The banner is displayed within the range of 1:400 to 1:100 page views, and it will continue till early next week. We look forward to learning from the usability tests and sharing the result with you. Thanks. Naoko ... on behalf of the usability team. -- 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] Usability study in progress
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Naoko Komura nkom...@wikimedia.org wrote: The remote usability study on Thursday (March 26 PDT) will be done remotely, which means we recruit participants from Wikipedia through the site notice, and connect with them through web conferencing. This is brilliant - you could automate the testing and reporting in addition to having a virtually unlimited number of subjects. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Naoko Komura nkom...@wikimedia.org wrote: The remote usability study on Thursday (March 26 PDT) will be done remotely, which means we recruit participants from Wikipedia through the site notice, and connect with them through web conferencing. This is brilliant - you could automate the testing and reporting in addition to having a virtually unlimited number of subjects. It lacks some feedback from tests done in a lab - the video cameras recording eye motion and focus, what someone says to themselves or others, and user mouse patterns, are important data. But more data is always good. If you can't get someone to meet you in the lab, testing via web conferencing has been shown to be good data. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress
Dear Aphaia, I'm really excited to get the result of this study since one of the common input that I got from newbie contributors either online or during workshops are that it's harder for them to write Wikipedia than to write blogs :) Though I still don't get it why they think that way ;) Good luck and success for the effort. -- Ivan Lanin | Wikimedia Indonesia | http://wikimedia.or.id Sent from my BlackBerry® -Original Message- From: Naoko Komura nkom...@wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:28:45 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress Howdy. (adding wikien-l folks to this thread. my apology for not including wikien-l with my initial email.) The usability study has started today as scheduled. The usability team is monitoring the interviews and how ten test participants interact with Wikipedia when they are asked to edit an article at the lab facility in San Francisco today and tomorrow. The remote usability study on Thursday (March 26 PDT) will be done remotely, which means we recruit participants from Wikipedia through the site notice, and connect with them through web conferencing. Therefore the site notice for recruitment will appear again on Thursday. We expect to compile the results in a few weeks and the findings with you. Naoko Komura Program Manager, Wikimedia Foundation Naoko Komura wrote: One of the important components of the usability initiative is to conduct multiple rounds of usability tests. The plan is to conduct at least three rounds of tests for qualitative usability evaluation over the span of twelve months, i) the initial evaluation, ii) the progress evaluation, and iii) the final evaluation. The initial usability test is scheduled on March 24, 25th and 26th. In-person lab tests are conducted in San Francisco at the first two days, and remote tests will be conducted on the third day. As a preparation for the initial usability test, we incorporated the recruiting tool into English Wikipedia's site notice. You might have encountered site notice inviting for the participation. The target audience of testers are Wikipedia readers who have little or no experience in editing the Wikipedia articles. The banner is displayed within the range of 1:400 to 1:100 page views, and it will continue till early next week. We look forward to learning from the usability tests and sharing the result with you. Thanks. Naoko ... on behalf of the usability team. -- 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] Usability study in progress
Hoi, Naoko is Naoko and Aphaia is someone else.. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Naoko_Komura_December_2008.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Benutzer_Aphaia.jpg Thanks, GerardM 2009/3/25 Ivan Lanin ivan.la...@wikimedia.or.id Dear Aphaia, I'm really excited to get the result of this study since one of the common input that I got from newbie contributors either online or during workshops are that it's harder for them to write Wikipedia than to write blogs :) Though I still don't get it why they think that way ;) Good luck and success for the effort. -- Ivan Lanin | Wikimedia Indonesia | http://wikimedia.or.id Sent from my BlackBerry® -Original Message- From: Naoko Komura nkom...@wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:28:45 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org; wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Foundation-l] Usability study in progress Howdy. (adding wikien-l folks to this thread. my apology for not including wikien-l with my initial email.) The usability study has started today as scheduled. The usability team is monitoring the interviews and how ten test participants interact with Wikipedia when they are asked to edit an article at the lab facility in San Francisco today and tomorrow. The remote usability study on Thursday (March 26 PDT) will be done remotely, which means we recruit participants from Wikipedia through the site notice, and connect with them through web conferencing. Therefore the site notice for recruitment will appear again on Thursday. We expect to compile the results in a few weeks and the findings with you. Naoko Komura Program Manager, Wikimedia Foundation Naoko Komura wrote: One of the important components of the usability initiative is to conduct multiple rounds of usability tests. The plan is to conduct at least three rounds of tests for qualitative usability evaluation over the span of twelve months, i) the initial evaluation, ii) the progress evaluation, and iii) the final evaluation. The initial usability test is scheduled on March 24, 25th and 26th. In-person lab tests are conducted in San Francisco at the first two days, and remote tests will be conducted on the third day. As a preparation for the initial usability test, we incorporated the recruiting tool into English Wikipedia's site notice. You might have encountered site notice inviting for the participation. The target audience of testers are Wikipedia readers who have little or no experience in editing the Wikipedia articles. The banner is displayed within the range of 1:400 to 1:100 page views, and it will continue till early next week. We look forward to learning from the usability tests and sharing the result with you. Thanks. Naoko ... on behalf of the usability team. -- 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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
