Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation

[Liam Wyatt]

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Philippe Beaudette <
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

>
> On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:06 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> >> LiquidThreads was developed for that
> >> purpose, but it seems to have been largely discarded, with no
> >> significant
> >> interest from the community, the foundation or the usability team -
> >> why?
> >
> > This may be part of the solution, but there is more to your
> > statement above.
> > LiquidThreads is receiving more attention now; Erik probably has the
> > latest status.
>
> LiquidThreads will be deploying in a small live environment very soon,
> according to a conversation I had with werdna day before yesterday.
>
> Philippe
>
> yes, LiquidThreads holds great promise for improved communication (at
least, on-Wiki communication). user:Werdna (Andrew Garrett) who is
developing it was
surprisedto note
at Wikimania how few people knew that it was being revamped as a
matter of priority. Videos of his presentations on the topic at Wikimania
can be seen here
(day two
video, starting at 13:30) and
here(starting
at 20:00) and I believe it will be live-trialled at the
Stratey.wikimedia.org wiki soon.

As for the discussion of "how to improve foundation-l" I must concur with
what Lars Aronssen said about how the vast majority of followers of this
list "lurk". Tim & Austin I agree with everything you've said here too. As
has been mentioned by Henning Schlottmann a issue with web-based fora (e.g.
message boards) is that they are "pull based". Yes, this can be seen as a
problem and hopefully there are ways to enable more "push" functionality.
However, to reverse the question, one of the major reasons why foundation-l
is so despised by many is precisely *because* it is push-based.
Everyone.Gets.Every.Single.Message - this just doesn't scale. Thank god for
threaded-chat in modern email clients is all I can say. So, whilst having
everything appear in your inbox is a good feature to have if you want it,
IMO the onus should be on the individual to chose to opt-in to a
thread/discussion rather than the email system which forces people to
opt-out (or at least tune-out or at worst unsubscribe). A web-based forum
allows you to bypass discussions you do not want to engage in freeing your
time/mindspace for discussions that are more relevant to your interests.
And, for those that wish to follow every single thread, there surely must be
an option to be automatically notified every time there is a new posting or
a new thread created.

-Liam [[witty lama]]
-- 
wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Do we have a complete set of WMF projects?

[John Vandenberg]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Robert Rohde  wrote:
> If we are just throwing out random ideas...
>
> I've long wanted to see an open source project to create a world
> family tree, i.e. document the ancestry and connections between
> everyone ever.  There are a couple high profile closed source / fee
> based projects aiming to do this, but no successful projects that
> really have open access as part of their foundation.  Even if we
> limited such a project to just deceased individuals (as the big
> projects usually do) it would still be a massive undertaking and
> potentially very useful for researchers.
>
> However, while a wiki could work, it would be a suboptimal approach.
> Much like wikispecies, genealogical information has a heavy component
> of structured data that could benefit from dedicated tools designed
> for that data.  As has been suggested elsewhere, it seems that most of
> the things that can be easily done by a wiki are already being done
> either by us or by Wikia and similar third parties.

Robert,

Are you familiar with Rodovid ?

It has been mentioned in this thread by Yann, and is the top project
mentioned here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rodovid

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Do we have a complete set of WMF projects?

[Robert Rohde]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:40 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
 wrote:


> In my opinion, What is really missing for example is the ability to
> find all the articles that occur in a geographic location.
>
> I would like to see all the articles about Beijing for example, but it
> is not easy. Google provides some of this, but it could be better.



I've seriously thought about implementing this.  Enhancing the
existing coordinate templates by creating a searchable coordinates
table in the database would not be a difficult thing.  It requires a
bit of thought and effort to make it efficient, but the underlying
idea is simple.  Locating nearby articles (and geocoded images) could
have a lot of uses.

-Robert Rohde

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Do we have a complete set of WMF projects?

[Robert Rohde]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:20 PM, David Goodman  wrote:
> Perhaps we need a peripheral Wikipedia layer for items meeting V, but
> where N being based on general assumptions:  a level for verifiable
> articles that don't meet current notability standards.
>
> It could be a separate project, Wikidirectory--just as we moved out
> dicdefs, and quotations, and so on, except  that  there are already
> too many projects to keep track of.  Could we do it within Wikipedia,
> perhaps as a namespace?
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>

Another idea that I encountered somewhere (not currently sure where)
was to create a global wiki directory to essentially replace the
yellow pages.  Something managed under a wiki model to include the
names, addresses, phone numbers, websites, and a short description of
any and all local businesses.  Commercial businesses are a fine
example of entities that are usually verifiable but not notable from
Wikipedia's point of view, and having a central repository of
directory information would generally be useful.  A crowd sourced
directory would suffer from the general problems of accuracy that all
our wikiprojects have to worry about, but probably has the potential
to include more comprehensive information than the commercial
providers can manage.

If people truly believe in the "sum of all human knowledge" paradigm,
then eventually we'll have to confront what to do with a wide range of
factual information (like yellow page listings, family trees, sports
almanacs, and other things) that are permanent or semi-permanent and
yet generally not in the scope of projects like Wikipedia because they
aren't very notable.  Wikibooks can vaguely address some of this, but
shoehorning everything into a "book" model doesn't really make sense
either.

-Robert Rohde

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Do we have a complete set of WMF projects?

[jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> On 9/8/09 3:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/9/8 Pedro Sanchez:
>>> Geographical/atlas/map kind ofproject
>>>
>>> granted, there's wikimapia and other external equivalents
>>> but we (Wikimedia) are lacking it
>>
>> Is there any point us doing something that already exists? What would
>> be better about a Wikimedia version?
>
> Our current direction is to coordinate with external resources rather
> than create them from scratch, where we've got compatible goals and ideals.
>
> For instance, rather than creating our own map system from scratch we're
> working with OpenStreetMap to integrate mapping, using our own rendering
> servers with a copy of the public data and making it easier to stick
> maps in wiki pages for starters, with easier ways to get into the
> upstream system to improve location name translations and mapping data.

I have been following the map-l and openstreetmap closely.
There was a status report posted just recently:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/maps-l/2009-September/000270.html

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates

Also there is a big discussion on the idea that wikipedia data can be
imported into openstreetmap, because supposedly the coordinates from
Wikipedia are copied from non free sources.:
http://www.nabble.com/Wikipedia-POI-import--td23392791.html

In my opinion, What is really missing for example is the ability to
find all the articles that occur in a geographic location.

I would like to see all the articles about Beijing for example, but it
is not easy. Google provides some of this, but it could be better.

On a different dimension, time not space :

another project that I would like to see it a WikiTimeLine
It would be great to be able to extract all the data references out of
the wikipedia articles and put the on a time line.


mike

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdupont

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Do we have a complete set of WMF projects?

[David Goodman]

Perhaps we need a peripheral Wikipedia layer for items meeting V, but
where N being based on general assumptions:  a level for verifiable
articles that don't meet current notability standards.

It could be a separate project, Wikidirectory--just as we moved out
dicdefs, and quotations, and so on, except  that  there are already
too many projects to keep track of.  Could we do it within Wikipedia,
perhaps as a namespace?

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Robert Rohde  wrote:
> If we are just throwing out random ideas...
>
> I've long wanted to see an open source project to create a world
> family tree, i.e. document the ancestry and connections between
> everyone ever.  There are a couple high profile closed source / fee
> based projects aiming to do this, but no successful projects that
> really have open access as part of their foundation.  Even if we
> limited such a project to just deceased individuals (as the big
> projects usually do) it would still be a massive undertaking and
> potentially very useful for researchers.
>
> However, while a wiki could work, it would be a suboptimal approach.
> Much like wikispecies, genealogical information has a heavy component
> of structured data that could benefit from dedicated tools designed
> for that data.  As has been suggested elsewhere, it seems that most of
> the things that can be easily done by a wiki are already being done
> either by us or by Wikia and similar third parties.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:24 AM, oscar  wrote:
>> On 9/9/09, Michael Peel  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2 Sep 2009, at 12:35, David Goodman wrote:
>>>
 There is sufficient missing material in  every Wikipedia, sufficient
 lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in
 earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for
 updating  articles, sufficient potentially free media to add,
 sufficient needed imagery to get;  that we have more than enough work
 for all the volunteers we are likely to get.
>>>
>>> I apologise for taking this slightly out of context, but it touches
>>> upon something I've been wondering about recently, which is: do we
>>> have a complete set of WMF projects?
>>
>> great topic :-D
>>
>> in my personal vision, it is rather obvious we should consider the
>> work of the wmf as "perpetually unfinished" just as wikipedia or any
>> of its other projects: an ongoing process, never ever {{done}}
>> completely.
>>
>> to just do a little brainstorm, let me share some ideas as well:
>> * a compendium to wikipedia, collecting each and every complete older
>> encyclopedia (which is no longer copyrighted), thus also giving a peek
>> into the history of knowledge and of encyclopedias (does this really
>> belong in wikisource? maybe)
>> * a wikimusic including a musical dictionary, where one can e.g. look
>> up themes and melodies, find sheet music and recordings, searching by
>> notes etc
>> * i also thought of wikimaps, somebody mentioned this already, imnsho
>> including "all  maps" in detailed resolutions also historical maps,
>> thus also giving a peek into the history of geography and of
>> cartography as well as leaving room for original creations under a
>> free license (new maps)
>>
>> just my 2 cts ;-)
>>
>> all the best,
>> oscar
>>
>> --
>> *edito ergo sum*
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Hai ...any help for my trafic and rank

[jokarwilis2005]

See and give me ide for trafic and rank alexa good/bad is my blog...this is 
my blog???!! http://www.karina-9.blogspot.com
Sent from my AXIS Worry Free BlackBerry® smartphone
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation

[jokarwilis2005]

Ya..I think must go on
--Original Message--
From: Philippe Beaudette
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
Sent: Sep 12, 2009 08:03


On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:06 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:

>> LiquidThreads was developed for that
>> purpose, but it seems to have been largely discarded, with no  
>> significant
>> interest from the community, the foundation or the usability team -  
>> why?
>
> This may be part of the solution, but there is more to your  
> statement above.
> LiquidThreads is receiving more attention now; Erik probably has the
> latest status.

LiquidThreads will be deploying in a small live environment very soon,  
according to a conversation I had with werdna day before yesterday.

Philippe

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


Sent from my AXIS Worry Free BlackBerry® smartphone
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:06 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:

>> LiquidThreads was developed for that
>> purpose, but it seems to have been largely discarded, with no  
>> significant
>> interest from the community, the foundation or the usability team -  
>> why?
>
> This may be part of the solution, but there is more to your  
> statement above.
> LiquidThreads is receiving more attention now; Erik probably has the
> latest status.

LiquidThreads will be deploying in a small live environment very soon,  
according to a conversation I had with werdna day before yesterday.

Philippe

___
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-

[Sue Gardner]

Fair enough, Brion :-) -- I'm just going to amplify and elaborate a
little on Jennifer's original mail. I think some of this is on the
meta page, but I'll say it here anyway.

The purpose of the chapters grant process is to make money available
to people to get good work done. The basic assumption underpinning it
is that those people know best what they need to make progress towards
our shared goals. They know their culture best, they know their
situation best, and they know best what will help them get stuff done.

Because of that, the intent of the Wikimedia Foundation is to provide
a simple lightweight process for grants approval. Many chapters have
never applied for a grant in any context: they are learning how to do
it, and we want to support that learning. We have an obligation to
apply some scrutiny to their requests (and we do), but we also
acknowledge that we at the Foundation may or may not have any
particular expertise in Portugese culture, or German culture, or
Indian. We don't pretend to be the experts in their specific context.

To that end, we're comfortable applying some scrutiny and finetuning,
which Jennifer has done --- but we do also want to trust them, and to
assume good faith. I am confident that the Portugese grant recipients,
like the other recipients, will put the money to good use. They're
required to report on what they did with it, and we expect that if the
money turns out to be too much, or the need turns out to be somewhat
different than planned, they will tell us so, and we will work out
something sensible that is not wasteful.

Probably some mistakes will be made, and we will learn from that. That
will be unavoidable, and is also a desirable part of the process. Part
of the purpose is to learn -- all of us, together. And that is also
why the process is public: so people other than the Foundation and the
grant recipients, can comment and influence and share and learn.

On the whole, I am confident the money will be well-used, and will
achieve its goal: supporting people in advancing our shared mission,
in ways that make sense in their context.

Thanks,
Sue


On 11/09/2009, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> May I respectfully suggest that further discussion on this thread be
> taken offlist until new arguments come to light which have not already
> been posted?
>
> -- brion
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


-- 
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

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] Use of moderation

[Samuel Klein]

Tisza, this is very well put.

On 9/11/09, Tisza Gergő  wrote:

>  - the discussion space is divided by time, not by topic. What little 
> topic-based

Yes.  put another way, 'there is no natural namespace to fill and
revise over time as all useful discussions are traversed'

>  - the moderation is not transparent: if someone claims being censured, there 
> is
>  - the moderation is binary, and consequently too soft: there is no way to 
> flag
>  - topics cannot be raised on multiple lists without splitting the discussion;

I hadn't thought of some of these.

>  - it is hard to include new people (who where not subscribed before) into a
>  discussion bacause the way replying works. (This is actually solved by gmane,
>  - there is no way to see how many people are interested in a thread.
>  - there is no way to determine consensus (even approximately). With many
>  - it just doesn't scale well. Already everyone is complaining about the 
> traffic,


>  I always found it strange that Wikimedia, being one of the greatest 
> facilitators
>  of online collaboration, doesn't have its own cutting edge communication 
> tools.
>  Not only do the mailing lists suck, wiki talk pages are just as bad. I think 
> the
>  logical thing to do would be to take back most of the meta-project
>  communication  to the wikis, eat our own dogfood, and develop a wiki-based
>  communication system that works (preferably in reverse order).

I cannot but agree.


>  LiquidThreads was developed for that
>  purpose, but it seems to have been largely discarded, with no significant
>  interest from the community, the foundation or the usability team - why?

This may be part of the solution, but there is more to your statement above.
LiquidThreads is receiving more attention now; Erik probably has the
latest status.


>  I think the foundation should invest into reviewing state of the art tools 
> for
>  large-scale constructive/informative discussion (slashdot, stackoverflow,
>  ideatorrent, uservoice come to mind) and adding whatever feature needed to
>  LiquidThreads to make it stick. I think opt-out moderation based on some sort
> of collaborative scoring, some sort of voting or at least ranking method, and
>  thread summaries with a tag or category system are the norm nowadays, and
> of  course there would be need for a bidirectional email gateway.

This would also make [[m:LSS]] much easier to compile :)


>  - set up a clone of foundation-l which is heavily moderated, and where all
>  - make better use of Nabble (or some opensource equivalent), which already
>  - make some of the private lists readable to everyone. If the only reason for
>  their existence is noise, it is enough to control write access strictly.
>  - set up a public waste bin where moderated mails can still be read (thus
>  avoiding the censorship debates) but do not pollute the discussion otherwise.

+4.

Is there a page describing the private lists we use?
[[m:Mailing_lists/overview]] only lists oversight, stewards, and checkuser.

SJ

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[Pavlo Shevelo]

> That's usually what codification means :-)
Ah-ha!
Many thanks! :)

On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Mark Williamson  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo  
> wrote:
>> Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured
>> and in written'?
>> If so it's exactly the basic proposal of Anders Wennersten:
>
> That's usually what codification means :-)
>
> 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] Moderate this list

[Mark Williamson]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo  wrote:
> Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured
> and in written'?
> If so it's exactly the basic proposal of Anders Wennersten:

That's usually what codification means :-)

Mark

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[Pavlo Shevelo]

> I believe what was meant by this is that we should codify policies the
> same way that all large Wikipedias have codified policies, NOT that we
> should adopt the same policies as en.wp or any other for that matter.

If we're talking about Wikipedias - yes.
But if we are talking about moderation policies for this particular
mailing list (what was and still is the context - if I'm not mistaken)
codification will not work:
moderator will ban me (it's only mind game I do hope :) ) according to
en:WP rules, I will appeal according to uk:WP rules and, say, Yaroslav
will object my appeal according to ru:WP rules  while you will support
my appeal according to some other rules.

Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured
and in written'?
If so it's exactly the basic proposal of Anders Wennersten:

> -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia
> (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc)

and perhaps Yaroslav  just missed "in the same way as" and understood
that as proposal to adopt en:WP rules without any adaptation to
multicultured (did I used the proper word?) community of this mailing
list and/or Meta


On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Mark Williamson  wrote:
 -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia
 (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc)
>>
>> What wikipedia? I have no idea what the en.wp rules are for discussions,
>> and I do not wnat to be blocked on this list for not having this idea. On
>> ru.wp, my home project, we may very well use different rules.
>
> I believe what was meant by this is that we should codify policies the
> same way that all large Wikipedias have codified policies, NOT that we
> should adopt the same policies as en.wp or any other for that matter.
>
> 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] Charities get external video annotation on YouTube

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/9/11 David Gerard :
>> http://philanthropy.com/news/prospecting/9484/new-youtube-feature-helps-charities-raise-money-with-videos
>>
>> So, any videos we can do this with?
>
> Didn't Jimmy do a video message as part of the last fundraiser? It
> would be great to put something like that on YouTube.

I must correct myself, it was the fundraiser before last:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/donate/2007/psa/

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Charities get external video annotation on YouTube

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/11 David Gerard :
> http://philanthropy.com/news/prospecting/9484/new-youtube-feature-helps-charities-raise-money-with-videos
>
> So, any videos we can do this with?

Didn't Jimmy do a video message as part of the last fundraiser? It
would be great to put something like that on YouTube.

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

[Foundation-l] Charities get external video annotation on YouTube

[David Gerard]

http://philanthropy.com/news/prospecting/9484/new-youtube-feature-helps-charities-raise-money-with-videos

So, any videos we can do this with?


- d.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[Mark Williamson]

>>> -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia
>>> (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc)
>
> What wikipedia? I have no idea what the en.wp rules are for discussions,
> and I do not wnat to be blocked on this list for not having this idea. On
> ru.wp, my home project, we may very well use different rules.

I believe what was meant by this is that we should codify policies the
same way that all large Wikipedias have codified policies, NOT that we
should adopt the same policies as en.wp or any other for that matter.

Mark

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[Pavlo Shevelo]

> Yes. You are right about that. So, may we (insiders) promise not to
> have such discourse? :)

It's a problem with mailing versus face to face meeting: it's
impossible to see whether you crossed your heart or crossed you
fingers while writing that :-P

[Disclaimer: It's just Friday evening joke, sorry if somebody minds/objects]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Birgitte SB  wrote:
>> As someone who does not think heavy-moderation is a good answer to the 
>> problem, I think you are missing the point.
>>
>> These bold/imprudent sort of people have useful contributions in sharing 
>> their positions.  It is the way they ridicule others who have different 
>> positions that is the problem.  BTW this is not limited only to those 
>> generally critical of WMF, there are supporters of WMF that have the same 
>> problem.  The end result of this behavior is that there less participation 
>> from people not comfortable with the ridicule.  And the people who are less 
>> likely to participate because of this is not equally spread across cultures. 
>>  So it hurts our outreach and it hurts our general purpose because we end up 
>> hearing thoughts from a much less diverse group than we might.
>>
>> Two examples of the tone I find to be such a problem
>>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054235.html
>>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054159.html
>>
>> I honestly believe that as long as this sort of tone continues to be a 
>> regular feature here; the overwhelming majority of participants here will be 
>> Western men.
>
> Yes. You are right about that. So, may we (insiders) promise not to
> have such discourse? :)
>
> ___
> 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

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Birgitte SB  wrote:
> As someone who does not think heavy-moderation is a good answer to the 
> problem, I think you are missing the point.
>
> These bold/imprudent sort of people have useful contributions in sharing 
> their positions.  It is the way they ridicule others who have different 
> positions that is the problem.  BTW this is not limited only to those 
> generally critical of WMF, there are supporters of WMF that have the same 
> problem.  The end result of this behavior is that there less participation 
> from people not comfortable with the ridicule.  And the people who are less 
> likely to participate because of this is not equally spread across cultures.  
> So it hurts our outreach and it hurts our general purpose because we end up 
> hearing thoughts from a much less diverse group than we might.
>
> Two examples of the tone I find to be such a problem
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054235.html
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054159.html
>
> I honestly believe that as long as this sort of tone continues to be a 
> regular feature here; the overwhelming majority of participants here will be 
> Western men.

Yes. You are right about that. So, may we (insiders) promise not to
have such discourse? :)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[Birgitte SB]

--- On Fri, 9/11/09, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> From: Milos Rancic 
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" 
> Date: Friday, September 11, 2009, 1:49 PM
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM, effe
> iets anders
> 
> wrote:
> > 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...
> 
> (Answering to Gerard's mail, too.)
> 
> It is important to have calm atmosphere during discussions.
> But, it is
> important to have bold/impudent persons in the discussion,
> because it
> is more probable that they'd say to you what do they think
> and what do
> others think, but don't want to say. While they are
> constructive. And
> I may list a number of reasons why do I think that Antony,
> Thomas
> Dalton and even Gregory Kohs *are* constructive (if anyone
> wants, I'll
> make the list).
> 

As someone who does not think heavy-moderation is a good answer to the problem, 
I think you are missing the point.

These bold/imprudent sort of people have useful contributions in sharing their 
positions.  It is the way they ridicule others who have different positions 
that is the problem.  BTW this is not limited only to those generally critical 
of WMF, there are supporters of WMF that have the same problem.  The end result 
of this behavior is that there less participation from people not comfortable 
with the ridicule.  And the people who are less likely to participate because 
of this is not equally spread across cultures.  So it hurts our outreach and it 
hurts our general purpose because we end up hearing thoughts from a much less 
diverse group than we might.

Two examples of the tone I find to be such a problem

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054235.html

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054159.html

I honestly believe that as long as this sort of tone continues to be a regular 
feature here; the overwhelming majority of participants here will be Western 
men.

Birgitte SB


  

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[Brion Vibber]

On 9/11/09 12:45 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>> Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I
> Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way.
> And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the
> first to be used.

The fundamental mechanism of moderation isn't to restrict posters from 
speaking, but to give them a chance to reconsider the tone of their 
message between hitting "send" and the time the post goes out to 
everyone, possibly aided by getting direct feedback from the moderator 
about the tone.

Goodness knows I *wish* plenty of my posts had been moderated, after the 
fact!

-- brion

___
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-

[Brion Vibber]

May I respectfully suggest that further discussion on this thread be 
taken offlist until new arguments come to light which have not already 
been posted?

-- brion

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Pavlo Shevelo  wrote:
>> Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I
> Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way.
> And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the
> first to be used.

Yep.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[Pavlo Shevelo]

> Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I
Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way.
And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the
first to be used.

--Pavlo Shevelo

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
>> By imposing strictly rule that, for example, discourse like "See this
>> [...], I told you that members of WMF Board are liars!", you would
>> exclude from communication a person who may point from time to time to
>> some problem. Of course, nicely worded "Calm down!" should be said to
>> that person, but such person shouldn't be instantly blocked after one
>> or two emotional overreactions. And it is quite possible that we would
>> have such situations if we strictly impose rules.
>>
>
> Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I
> admit, it might be not the nicest or even not the most efficient way, but
> still?
>
> 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] Moderate this list

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

> By imposing strictly rule that, for example, discourse like "See this
> [...], I told you that members of WMF Board are liars!", you would
> exclude from communication a person who may point from time to time to
> some problem. Of course, nicely worded "Calm down!" should be said to
> that person, but such person shouldn't be instantly blocked after one
> or two emotional overreactions. And it is quite possible that we would
> have such situations if we strictly impose rules.
>

Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I
admit, it might be not the nicest or even not the most efficient way, but
still?

Cheers
Yaroslav


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM, effe iets anders
 wrote:
> 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...

(Answering to Gerard's mail, too.)

It is important to have calm atmosphere during discussions. But, it is
important to have bold/impudent persons in the discussion, because it
is more probable that they'd say to you what do they think and what do
others think, but don't want to say. While they are constructive. And
I may list a number of reasons why do I think that Antony, Thomas
Dalton and even Gregory Kohs *are* constructive (if anyone wants, I'll
make the list).

There are no two groups, there are many different kinds of persons.
Note, for example, that Gregory Kohs calmed down after the escalation,
as well as he is not one of the major contributors to the
foundation-l, which means that he is raising issues when he thinks
that they are important. (BTW, some of his points from two threads are
valid and those facts were new for me.)

Living on Internet and, especially, living inside of one
uber-multicultural virtual community, like Wikimedia is, means that
you have to live with cultural differences; it means that we have to
adapt to each other. And I expect much more adaptation from the side
of highly involved Wikimedians than from the side of those who are
less involved in multiproject, multilingual and multicultural issues.

Another thing is related to the personal contacts. I was thinking to
contact Gregory Kohs personally, but Birgitte (and, probably, others)
already did it. When you have a problem with an insider, it is quite
possible to solve it by talking personally with that person.

If we bureaucratically impose rules which are related to behavior on
lists, our mailing list (or whatever it is) will become more exclusive
and we already have problems related to exclusivity. We need here
persons who are long term contributors to Wikimedia projects, who are
able to write in English (and who are not afraid of writing in
English; because of that fact, for example, we have very small number
of Japanese Wikimedians on this list), who have somewhat bigger
picture about technological and cultural trends and so on.

By imposing strictly rule that, for example, discourse like "See this
[...], I told you that members of WMF Board are liars!", you would
exclude from communication a person who may point from time to time to
some problem. Of course, nicely worded "Calm down!" should be said to
that person, but such person shouldn't be instantly blocked after one
or two emotional overreactions. And it is quite possible that we would
have such situations if we strictly impose rules.

BTW, while communication flows, I don't see that we have a problem
here. Quality of communication may fluctuate, but we are conscious
beings able to regulate it, like we are doing it now.

Another question is related to the participation of people who don't
like climate like foundation-l has. It is related to their perception
of emails on mailing lists. It is not just noise which is exists on
every mailing list, it is, also, about issues which are (ir)relevant
to a person who is reading emails. I know just one Wikimedian for whom
I may guarantee that reads all emails (and not just emails, but RCs of
dozens of wikis, too) and reacts when he thinks that he may give a
relevant contribution. The most of us don't do that; we are using more
or less common algorithms to filter such messages. In that sense, I am
ready to volunteer to teach WMF staff -- and other Wikimedians which
are bothered by the tone and/or noise here -- h

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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/11 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.

I would change "improve" to "significantly improve" (relative to the
cost), but otherwise I agree, that is the question. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary (which nobody has even attempted to provide),
I think the default should be to assume there is no significant
difference between Portugal and other western European countries.

___
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] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009-

[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

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

[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.
Thanks,
  GerardM

2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton 

> 2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton :
> > 2009/9/11 Gerard Meijssen :
> >> Hoi,
> >> You are doing it again. You insist that for them being Wikimedians they
> must
> >> share the same values the same culture as you do... It must be true
> because
> >> you insist on it. Somehow I do not buy it.
> >
> > If they value themselves over our goals, they are entitled to those
> > values, but I want nothing to do with them.
>
> PS Even if you are right, surely the relevant values are those of the
> donors, not the people spending the money? If they were spending money
> they had fundraised it would be a different matter, since the donors
> would be from the same culture, but that isn't the case.
>
> ___
> 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-

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/9/11 Gerard Meijssen :
>> Hoi,
>> You are doing it again. You insist that for them being Wikimedians they must
>> share the same values the same culture as you do... It must be true because
>> you insist on it. Somehow I do not buy it.
>
> If they value themselves over our goals, they are entitled to those
> values, but I want nothing to do with them.

PS Even if you are right, surely the relevant values are those of the
donors, not the people spending the money? If they were spending money
they had fundraised it would be a different matter, since the donors
would be from the same culture, but that isn't the case.

___
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-

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/11 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> You are doing it again. You insist that for them being Wikimedians they must
> share the same values the same culture as you do... It must be true because
> you insist on it. Somehow I do not buy it.

If they value themselves over our goals, they are entitled to those
values, but I want nothing to do with them.

___
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-

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are doing it again. You insist that for them being Wikimedians they must
share the same values the same culture as you do... It must be true because
you insist on it. Somehow I do not buy it.
thanks,
GerardM

2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton 

> 2009/9/11 Philippe Beaudette :
> >
> > On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> >
> >> We're not talking about culture, we are talking about lunch. They are
> >> human beings, the same as we are, they have the same needs when it
> >> comes to food.
> >
> >
> > This, in fact, is one of the great fallacies of international
> > organizations.  Failure to notice and work within the context of
> > cultural norms condemns an organization very quickly.  In Italy, I was
> > far more likely to take business partners to long elaborate meals than
> > I would be in California.  Please, can we at least acknowledge that
> > it's not as simplistic as you present it here?
>
> It is that simple. If we were talking about having lunch with people
> outside the Wikimedia movement, it would be different because we have
> to comply with what they expect. We can expect people within the
> Wikimedia movement to change their expectations to fit what is best
> for the movement. It is not best for the movement to be spending money
> of their lunch when they are perfectly capable of getting their own
> lunch (as evidenced by the fact that they would be eating if they
> didn't go to the meeting). Either buying Wikimedian's lunch is a good
> use of money, or it isn't, culture doesn't factor into it.
>
> ___
> 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-

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/11 Philippe Beaudette :
>
> On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> We're not talking about culture, we are talking about lunch. They are
>> human beings, the same as we are, they have the same needs when it
>> comes to food.
>
>
> This, in fact, is one of the great fallacies of international
> organizations.  Failure to notice and work within the context of
> cultural norms condemns an organization very quickly.  In Italy, I was
> far more likely to take business partners to long elaborate meals than
> I would be in California.  Please, can we at least acknowledge that
> it's not as simplistic as you present it here?

It is that simple. If we were talking about having lunch with people
outside the Wikimedia movement, it would be different because we have
to comply with what they expect. We can expect people within the
Wikimedia movement to change their expectations to fit what is best
for the movement. It is not best for the movement to be spending money
of their lunch when they are perfectly capable of getting their own
lunch (as evidenced by the fact that they would be eating if they
didn't go to the meeting). Either buying Wikimedian's lunch is a good
use of money, or it isn't, culture doesn't factor into it.

___
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-

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> We're not talking about culture, we are talking about lunch. They are
> human beings, the same as we are, they have the same needs when it
> comes to food.


This, in fact, is one of the great fallacies of international  
organizations.  Failure to notice and work within the context of  
cultural norms condemns an organization very quickly.  In Italy, I was  
far more likely to take business partners to long elaborate meals than  
I would be in California.  Please, can we at least acknowledge that  
it's not as simplistic as you present it here?

Philippe

___
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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The likely and obvious answer is to someone who is known and trusted to be
involved in this.
Thanks,
 GerardM

2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton 

> 2009/9/11 Michael Snow :
> > Nathan wrote:
> >> I'm curious - Portugal isn't on this list of officially recognized
> >> chapters[1], but the grant criteria[2] say that grants are contingent
> >> on chapter recognition by the WMF. Has that happened and just not made
> >> it to meta?
> >>
> > I'm not sure what part of the criteria you're reading to paraphrase them
> > in those contingent terms. To quote from the page itself, "If your
> > chapter is still in development, you can still apply for funds
> > (especially when they are relevant to getting your chapter off the
> ground)".
>
> I'm curious, in that situation, who does the WMF actually give the money
> to?
>
> ___
> 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

[Nathan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Michael Snow  wrote:
>> I'm not sure what part of the criteria you're reading to paraphrase them
> in those contingent terms. To quote from the page itself, "If your
> chapter is still in development, you can still apply for funds
> (especially when they are relevant to getting your chapter off the ground)".
>
> --Michael Snow
>> [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters
>> [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/WMF_grant
>
> --


You're right, Michael - in an e-mail to the other thread I was a bit
more clear with my question, which was in two parts - had the chapter
been recognized, and if not was ChapCom involved? (I have no reason to
doubt this, just thought I'd ask.) I also asked how money was
disbursed in the absence of a legal entity to take responsibility for
it, and what monitoring steps were planned, which I'm still curious
about. Sorry for the unclear wording.

Nathan

___
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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/11 Michael Snow :
> Nathan wrote:
>> I'm curious - Portugal isn't on this list of officially recognized
>> chapters[1], but the grant criteria[2] say that grants are contingent
>> on chapter recognition by the WMF. Has that happened and just not made
>> it to meta?
>>
> I'm not sure what part of the criteria you're reading to paraphrase them
> in those contingent terms. To quote from the page itself, "If your
> chapter is still in development, you can still apply for funds
> (especially when they are relevant to getting your chapter off the ground)".

I'm curious, in that situation, who does the WMF actually give the money to?

___
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

[Michael Snow]

Nathan wrote:
> I'm curious - Portugal isn't on this list of officially recognized
> chapters[1], but the grant criteria[2] say that grants are contingent
> on chapter recognition by the WMF. Has that happened and just not made
> it to meta?
>   
I'm not sure what part of the criteria you're reading to paraphrase them 
in those contingent terms. To quote from the page itself, "If your 
chapter is still in development, you can still apply for funds 
(especially when they are relevant to getting your chapter off the ground)".

--Michael Snow
> [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters
> [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/WMF_grant

___
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

[Nathan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Waldir Pimenta  wrote:
> Hi Thomas, and all who showed concern about Wikimedia Portugal's planned
> expenses.
>
> I am one of the persons who calculated that budget, and thus I feel I should
> provide you with some information.
>
> First of all, I'd point out that none of us has any experience in
> nation-wide nonprofit organizations. We thus had no way to know what we
> would need to make it work, and chose to play safe. Obviously, we were aware
> that the value for meetings was fairly high, and we pointed that out in our
> proposal, as you can read in the page you linked:
>
> "We are (...) willing to reduce the frequency of the meetings if the total
> value is considered too high"
>
> And we indeed were advised to do so, when the grant was conceded:
>
> "The award was reduced from the requested USD $7,909 to encourage a smaller
> budget for travel."
>
> Let me assure you, we are as much as yourself concerned in not wasting the
> grant's money with "lunches for the members". We have plenty of planned
> activities (as you can see in
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Portugal/Actividades) for which we
> didn't include a budget in our request, since it was for the start-up only.
> But we are very much willing to find ways to meet less and apply the money
> in these projects instead.
>
> We would love to receive advice on how we can make the chapter work (well)
> with people so spread across the country (almost all the involved people
> live in different cities), and since much of the money WMF has was
> volunteer-contributed, we will take into account the wishes of the
> community. If you feel we should meet less (how many times do you think are
> enough? let us know your thoughts on our mailing list:
> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org), then we certainly will consider your
> advice.
>
> Thanks,
> Waldir


Thanks for commenting, Waldir. The last thing anyone wants to do is
discourage or impede the formation of a new Wikimedia chapter, and I
think any constructive criticism of the grant process should focus on
the Foundation and not recipients. As you say, new chapters are *new*
- you have the opportunity to benefit from the experience of the
Foundation staff and other chapter groups, and the grant review
process should be seen as an avenue to deliver that experience in
addition to funding.

I'm curious - Portugal isn't on this list of officially recognized
chapters[1], but the grant criteria[2] say that grants are contingent
on chapter recognition by the WMF. Has that happened and just not made
it to meta?

Thanks,

Nathan

[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Local_chapters
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/WMF_grants

___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/9/11 Waldir Pimenta :

> We would love to receive advice on how we can make the chapter work (well)
> with people so spread across the country (almost all the involved people
> live in different cities), and since much of the money WMF has was
> volunteer-contributed, we will take into account the wishes of the
> community. If you feel we should meet less (how many times do you think are
> enough? let us know your thoughts on our mailing list:
> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org), then we certainly will consider your
> advice.


WMUK (both versions) made very sure that official meetings were
explicitly allowed to be conducted online, not just in person. This
means an IRC meeting can be official (and a lot less nuisance).


- d.

___
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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/11 Waldir Pimenta :
> Hi Thomas, and all who showed concern about Wikimedia Portugal's planned
> expenses.
>
> I am one of the persons who calculated that budget, and thus I feel I should
> provide you with some information.

Thank you very much, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue.

> We would love to receive advice on how we can make the chapter work (well)
> with people so spread across the country (almost all the involved people
> live in different cities), and since much of the money WMF has was
> volunteer-contributed, we will take into account the wishes of the
> community. If you feel we should meet less (how many times do you think are
> enough? let us know your thoughts on our mailing list:
> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org), then we certainly will consider your
> advice.

I'll offer you some advice here - I'd rather not join a non-English
mailing list and I don't like to email a list I am not subscribed to.

WMUK has almost all its meetings on IRC (every week at first, now down
to once a fortnight usually), which are completely free. It is not
quite as efficient as face-to-face meetings, but it does work. We have
our Annual General Meeting (AGM - you may call it a General Assembly
or similar, a meeting of all members) in person (at the last one the
only cost was travel for the board, we got the room for free and I
think there was free tea and coffee, everything else people paid for
themselves - the next one will be part of a larger conference and we
are trying to get sponsorship for that). There is also a plan for one
board meeting a year in person in addition to the AGM, I expect the
only cost for that will be travel again.

We find people are generally happy to buy their own food when we meet
in a pub or similar, or eat before they arrive (we usually start
things around 1-2pm so people can get there since we are spread out
all over the country and have a terrible train system). The conference
we are planning will probably include a lunch, but it will either be
paid for by sponsorship or a registration fee for attendees, it won't
come out of general charity funds.

I wish you the best of luck and offer you whatever assistance and
advice I can - just ask.

___
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-

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/9/11 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?

We're not talking about culture, we are talking about lunch. They are
human beings, the same as we are, they have the same needs when it
comes to food.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Do we have a complete set of WMF projects?

[Robert Rohde]

If we are just throwing out random ideas...

I've long wanted to see an open source project to create a world
family tree, i.e. document the ancestry and connections between
everyone ever.  There are a couple high profile closed source / fee
based projects aiming to do this, but no successful projects that
really have open access as part of their foundation.  Even if we
limited such a project to just deceased individuals (as the big
projects usually do) it would still be a massive undertaking and
potentially very useful for researchers.

However, while a wiki could work, it would be a suboptimal approach.
Much like wikispecies, genealogical information has a heavy component
of structured data that could benefit from dedicated tools designed
for that data.  As has been suggested elsewhere, it seems that most of
the things that can be easily done by a wiki are already being done
either by us or by Wikia and similar third parties.

-Robert Rohde

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:24 AM, oscar  wrote:
> On 9/9/09, Michael Peel  wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Sep 2009, at 12:35, David Goodman wrote:
>>
>>> There is sufficient missing material in  every Wikipedia, sufficient
>>> lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in
>>> earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for
>>> updating  articles, sufficient potentially free media to add,
>>> sufficient needed imagery to get;  that we have more than enough work
>>> for all the volunteers we are likely to get.
>>
>> I apologise for taking this slightly out of context, but it touches
>> upon something I've been wondering about recently, which is: do we
>> have a complete set of WMF projects?
>
> great topic :-D
>
> in my personal vision, it is rather obvious we should consider the
> work of the wmf as "perpetually unfinished" just as wikipedia or any
> of its other projects: an ongoing process, never ever {{done}}
> completely.
>
> to just do a little brainstorm, let me share some ideas as well:
> * a compendium to wikipedia, collecting each and every complete older
> encyclopedia (which is no longer copyrighted), thus also giving a peek
> into the history of knowledge and of encyclopedias (does this really
> belong in wikisource? maybe)
> * a wikimusic including a musical dictionary, where one can e.g. look
> up themes and melodies, find sheet music and recordings, searching by
> notes etc
> * i also thought of wikimaps, somebody mentioned this already, imnsho
> including "all  maps" in detailed resolutions also historical maps,
> thus also giving a peek into the history of geography and of
> cartography as well as leaving room for original creations under a
> free license (new maps)
>
> just my 2 cts ;-)
>
> all the best,
> oscar
>
> --
> *edito ergo sum*
>
> ___
> 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

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

> I've noticed that some signatures on this list do contain account/SUL
> information, but seemingly those are in minority (much less than 50%)

Mine does not, and I am not planning to use another e-mail for this list.

>> -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia
>> (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc)

What wikipedia? I have no idea what the en.wp rules are for discussions,
and I do not wnat to be blocked on this list for not having this idea. On
ru.wp, my home project, we may very well use different rules.

Cheers
Yaroslav


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

Re: [Foundation-l] open IRC meeting w/ Wikimedia Trustees: this Friday, 1800 UTC

[Pavlo Shevelo]

> ... I'd think there should be no objection to publishing
> the entire log. And if "minutes" is taken to mean simply a summary of
> the discussion, no doubt that would be welcome as well.

I do believe that if such objections will ever have place they should
be processed with all due respect and attention but I hope that there
will not be any because of following reasons:

* it's announced explicitly and clear in advance that it will be
public event so somebody badly can demand protection of some private
stuff;
* [last but not least] non-native speakers do need log available to,
say, after-reading (it's tough to be really on-line among native
speakers and never miss something essential)

And yes, in this case  "minutes" will be just summary (if references
to log segments will be included it will be greatly helpful).

-- Pavlo Shevelo
[SUL] Pavlo Shevelo
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Michael Snow  wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Samuel J Klein wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Speaking of which, I'm also looking for someone to organize the
>>> minutes.  [NB: you don't have to be present during the chat to do
>>> this.]  Again, pls contact me off-list.
>>>
>> Doesn't the board have a role designated to take minutes at meetings?
>>
> It does, but this is not an official meeting for the board to conduct
> business, it's a meeting to provide people in the community with a
> chance to have a discussion with the new board members. As such, I'm not
> sure it's meaningful to have minutes, but as mentioned it will be an
> open meeting and I'd think there should be no objection to publishing
> the entire log. And if "minutes" is taken to mean simply a summary of
> the discussion, no doubt that would be welcome as well.
>
> --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] Moderate this list

[Pavlo Shevelo]

> -All users on foundation-l must have an User account on Meta, with
> automatic mailsignal when discussion page is changed

If I'm not mistaken it (implicitly) suggests that all mail signatures
should contain a reference to that account (and/or SUL).
I would support that and I never did it yet presuming that it might :)
be obvious that if my mail address says

Pavlo Shevelo  wrote:
> A proposal from me that I have entered on
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l
>
> Wikiinfrastructure to support and ease moderation
> -All users on foundation-l must have an User account on Meta, with
> automatic mailsignal when discussion page is changed
> -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia
> (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc)
> -Warn unwanted behavior on the users discussion page (gives tracebility)
> -Block user when the bad behavior does not stop after warnings
> -(and keep pages like this on meta to be a place for discussion on
> processes etc of foundation-l, ie keep them away from the list itself)
>
> Anders
>
>
> ___
> 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] Do we have a complete set of WMF projects?

[Pavlo Shevelo]

> * Wikisource -- better native support for side-by-side translations,
> annotations, and extracting/citing primary source material from the
> other sites like Wikipedia would be very helpful.

Same thing is in need for Wikiquote as well while I do believe
 that
> ... extracting/citing primary source material from the other sites like ...

is extremely useful and very universal thing for any cross-project
'linking' (and even for internal citing)


On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
> On 9/9/09 9:41 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> As Erik points out, at a certain point we have to actually write new
>> code to support new ideas. Else "projects we could do at Wikimedia"
>> becomes "projects we can do with a wiki engine."
>
> IMO we need to do that for the projects we already have before we take
> on new obligations!
>
> We still have very poor software support for:
>
> * Commons -- We need a sane upload and post-upload workflow (eg review
> and deletion), and a clean system for handling structured metadata
> (descriptions, authorship, licence info).
>
> Some of this is being worked on now with Michael Dale's video & media
> work, and the Ford Foundation grant will let us put more resources into
> the workflow & metadata side, so this is the one I worry the least about. :)
>
>
> * Wiktionary -- Really needs to be rebuilt as a structured system. It's
> very hard to query Wiktionary or extract its data usefully, and there's
> a lot of duplicated manual work maintaining it.
>
> There was some third-party work done in this direction (Ultimate
> Wiktionary/WiktionaryZ/OmegaWiki) which was very interesting but never
> got the community buy-in to push that work back towards the live Wiktionary.
>
>
> * Wikibooks -- We still have very poor native support for multiple-page
> "books" or "modules", which complicates navigation, search, authoring,
> and downloading.
>
> Tools like the Collection extension are making it easier to download a
> batch of related pages for offline reading, but someone still needs to
> build those collections manually and they don't provide other navigation
> aids.
>
>
> * Wikinews -- Workflow on Wikinews has been aided by tools like
> FlaggedRevs but is still a bit awkward. Native support for things like
> exporting feeds of news articles is still missing, leading to a lot of
> workarounds and manual effort being expended.
>
>
> * Wikisource -- better native support for side-by-side translations,
> annotations, and extracting/citing primary source material from the
> other sites like Wikipedia would be very helpful.
>
> -- 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] Report to the Board of Trustees June 2009

[Waldir Pimenta]

Hi Thomas, and all who showed concern about Wikimedia Portugal's planned
expenses.

I am one of the persons who calculated that budget, and thus I feel I should
provide you with some information.

First of all, I'd point out that none of us has any experience in
nation-wide nonprofit organizations. We thus had no way to know what we
would need to make it work, and chose to play safe. Obviously, we were aware
that the value for meetings was fairly high, and we pointed that out in our
proposal, as you can read in the page you linked:

"We are (...) willing to reduce the frequency of the meetings if the total
value is considered too high"

And we indeed were advised to do so, when the grant was conceded:

"The award was reduced from the requested USD $7,909 to encourage a smaller
budget for travel."

Let me assure you, we are as much as yourself concerned in not wasting the
grant's money with "lunches for the members". We have plenty of planned
activities (as you can see in
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Portugal/Actividades) for which we
didn't include a budget in our request, since it was for the start-up only.
But we are very much willing to find ways to meet less and apply the money
in these projects instead.

We would love to receive advice on how we can make the chapter work (well)
with people so spread across the country (almost all the involved people
live in different cities), and since much of the money WMF has was
volunteer-contributed, we will take into account the wishes of the
community. If you feel we should meet less (how many times do you think are
enough? let us know your thoughts on our mailing list:
wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org), then we certainly will consider your
advice.

Thanks,
Waldir

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/9/10 Thomas Dalton :
> > 2009/9/10 Pharos :
> >> There are 21 accepted proposals listed on this page:
> >>
> >>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/WMF_grants/Reporting_Guidance
> >
> > Ah, well found! I didn't think to check that page - the title doesn't
> > suggest it would contain such info.
>
> I must say, I am amazed that this was approved:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/WMF_grants/WM_PT/Start-up
>
> WMUK managed to get set up without paying for any meals and all
> meetings have taken place in pubs or rooms we've got hold of for free.
> Paying nearly $3,500 for that out of charitable donations is patently
> ridiculous.
>
> ___
> 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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I think the discussion is about making foundation-l more inclusive. We know
that there is a large group of people who will not contribute to
foundation-l because they find the tone damaging. When this is reduced to
"being able to use the delete button" you forget that the damage is already
done. when the mail is read.

Even members of the WMF staff fear to use the foundation-l, we have people
who argue that their skills of English are not sufficient to contribute to
our list. We find that much information is now hidden away in internal
mailing lists because "they are more friendly". We find no understanding
when people in other countries DO want to come together in meat space to
talk and work on creating a new chapter. We find people who only spout
negativity and state that they no longer contribute to our projects setting
the tone.

Really, there are valid reasons why we need a channel for information. As it
is, much of what is posted on the foundation list does no longer have tone
or a positive effect. Much of the news that used to go to this list now ends
up on blogs or internal lists and as a consequence we become more insular
and less of a community.
Thanks,
 GerardM

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] Moderate this list

[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

Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list

[Anders Wennersten]

A proposal from me that I have entered on 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l

Wikiinfrastructure to support and ease moderation
-All users on foundation-l must have an User account on Meta, with 
automatic mailsignal when discussion page is changed
-Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia 
(wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc)
-Warn unwanted behavior on the users discussion page (gives tracebility)
-Block user when the bad behavior does not stop after warnings
-(and keep pages like this on meta to be a place for discussion on 
processes etc of foundation-l, ie keep them away from the list itself)

Anders


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