Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting update
Hi Michael, thanks a lot for sharing this short overview with us. I look forward to more extensive minutes of course and hope they will be published not too long from now - especially considering the strategic process that is going on. You mentioned the nominating committee and their imput. I'm glad that this kind of things is constantly under review and consideration. Is this input public, or otherwise at least to the chapters? (who will need to get started with the chapter selected board seats in the next months as well) That way community members and chapters can think with the nominating committee and give perhaps some additional suggestions. With kind regards, Lodewijk 2009/11/30 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: With our last board meeting falling a little later in the year than usual, and coming close to holidays, I'm a little late in giving this brief report on what happened. As you know, the board approved the audited financial statements for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, and those were posted on the Wikimedia Foundation website a couple weeks ago. As the organization has gotten settled in San Francisco, this has become a smoother process than in years past. It's not just that we're on solid financial ground (that's good, though even in the past we haven't been in immediate danger financially), but also as we've established the necessary infrastructure, we're better at tracking our finances and addressing issues that may need to be resolved in the course of an audit. The stress level around the audit is low enough now that although I had to miss the audit committee conference call (where I normally participate as an observer), I still had confidence that Veronique and Stu and everyone else would bring it to a successful conclusion. (That's my personal stress level I speak of, I won't claim there's no stress involved for Veronique.) Thanks to Veronique and her team, as well as the auditors, for their work. Thanks also to the volunteers on the audit committee for their service. One other thing the board reviewed out of the committee's work was a risks analysis that is being put together of the top risks and mitigation strategies for addressing them, which will become part of the strategic planning process. Speaking of which, strategic planning was the biggest single item on our agenda, and tended to be a thread running throughout the rest of the meeting as well. With help from the Bridgespan team, we worked through some preliminary strategy questions to discuss priorities and setting goals. We don't have concrete results from that to share, in part because the overall process is still in an early stage, but it was a good exercise for us in thinking on a strategic level and preparing for the more challenging decisions ahead. One thing that did come out of it is that we reviewed the guidance that the nominating committee was given in the search to fill the one remaining vacancy on the board, and provided some additional input for them as a result. One note I would add is the valuable contributions of the newer members of the board in bringing a more complete set of views to the group. SJ and Arne many of you know, and their emphasis on the health and potential of the community and chapters was important. I also really appreciated what Matt Halprin had to offer, especially in two areas: One, his capacity for strategic thinking and helping to keep us focused on strategy issues instead of drifting off-track, and two, his experience with other nonprofit boards and their practices was a good perspective to add. Their strengths help compensate for the fact that Jimmy wasn't able to attend the meeting, and I anticipate they will make us a good working group through the strategic planning process. The board also conducted a sort of general review and evaluation, not just of the financial situation but the state of the organization and the work being done by Sue and the staff. We think Sue is great as our Executive Director and has done a terrific job getting the organization to this point, where we're healthy and have the space to develop our capacity for achievement in the years ahead. And I can't say enough about the work the staff are doing, so I'll just share this one anecdote. Since the board meeting overlapped with the first week of the fundraiser, it's fortunate that we have the new office where there's more than one meeting room, otherwise I don't know where the board would have met. That's because the fundraising team would spend all day working together in one of the larger meeting rooms. This would involve as many as 6-8 people, and you wouldn't know that they eat or take breaks from casual observation, although we did make sure they at least got the leftover pizza from our lunch at one point. They've worked hard to keep the fundraiser operational, not to mention considering a lot of feedback and making improvements. It's easier
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Also, please address my point that banning self-identified pedophiles from editing merely entourages pedophile editors to *not* identify themselves as such (thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic activities will be overlooked). If that were true, then we wouldn't have banned any self-identified pedophiles, and we won't every ban another one, and this whole conversation is pointless. So...you're justifying the status quo by its existence? No, you asked me to address your point that insert untrue statement. I addressed it by pointing out that it's not true. I don't think they're going to change just because what they're doing is bannable. In fact, I think in the vast majority of cases these editors fully expect to eventually be banned Including the ones that make no on-wiki mentions of their pedophilia? I only know of one such case, and in that case, yes, I think he clearly expected to eventually be banned. I'm not including the pedophiles who make no public on-Internet mentions of their pedophilia. - the only question is how much we put up with before banning them. How much non-wiki-related behavior we put up with? No. And looking at the edits of whatshisname, I think he fits in that category. I'll bring it up again - this wasn't his first block, or even his first indefinite block. And I'll once again note that his past blocks had nothing to do with pedophilia and have no connection to this ban. Both his pedophilia (or claims of pedophilia) and his behavior which led to his first indefinite block are results of his character. I see no reason to wait for the latter when we already know the former. You claim to agree with me that pedophiles are bad people. So really I find it hard to see how you don't get this. And according to Ryan, and I assume the Arb Com checked this, he's been banned from quite a few other sites for the way he talks about his pedophilia (including LiveJournal for creating the 'childlove community'). There is no assertion that he engaged in any comparable conduct at Wikipedia. We banned him before he did. This is a good thing. And you yourself claimed, in the paragraph directly prior to this one, that if you think that any sort of pro-pedophilia editing would be tolerated for any length of time, you're mistaken. So which is it? To what pro-pedophilia editing are you referring? The part in your comment (thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic activities will be overlooked) I see a difference between whether or not you have the right to do something, and whether or not it's in your best interest to do so. When you asked me whether or not banning Pakistani editors is acceptable, I answered based on the latter. Had you asked whether or not the Hindi Wikipedia had a right to ban Pakistani editors, well, I would have responded with sure, they have that right, until the WMF decides to take it away from them. To be clear, you're stating that while you would regard such an act as inappropriate, you believe that the Hindi Wikipedia currently is empowered by the Wikimedia Foundation to ban Pakistani editors if it so chooses. Correct? I'm not completely familiar with the rules of the Hindi Wikipedia, but I assume they have a method of banning which doesn't involve petitioning the Wikimedia Foundation, so yes. Please direct me to the discussion(s) in which consensus was reached to ban all known pedophiles from editing. We're having one of them right now, I guess. And so far, no one has been bold enough to try to overturn the de facto ban. Try unblocking one of the blocked pedophiles, if you'd like. We have more than a de facto ban; we have some sort of ArbCom ruling. You and I both know that it's foolhardy, futile and disruptive to defy such a decision. We've come to a consensus, as a community, that some sort of ArbCom rulings are to be followed. I'm not sure where the discussion was in which that consensus was reached - there probably wasn't one - but there you go. No, pedophiles are assessed based on their past behavior as well. If whatshisname didn't post all over the Internet bragging about being a pedophile, he never would have been banned (for being a pedophile, anyway). Perhaps by behavior you mean on-wiki behavior. But handcuffing yourself with that rule is pointless. It treats Wikipedia like a game, and only promotes trolling. I don't mean on-wiki behavior, but I do mean behavior directly related to the wikis. Handcuffing yourself with that rule is pointless. You (and others) take this a step further by assuming that self-identified pedophiles will commit on-wiki misconduct (or that the likelihood is high enough to treat it as a certainty) and that permanently blocking their accounts will prevent this. I never claimed anything would prevent all on-wiki misconduct. I merely claim that banning self-identified pedophiles helps the project more than it harms
[Foundation-l] Office hours next Thursday, December 3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello all! Next Thursday's office hours will feature Jay Walsh, the Foundation's Head of Communications. If you don't know Jay you can learn all about him at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:JayWalsh. Office hours on Thursday are from 1700 to 1800 UTC (9:00 AM - 10:00 AM PST). If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat using a web browser: First is using the Wikizine chat gateway at http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi. Type a nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and #wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join. Also, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/, typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning. It should be all right. Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other relevant email lists you happen to be on. - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAksVtagACgkQyQg4JSymDYlSTACfTd7zJwdm3Ja533jkQyFdIOqr m64An32bBAid2M4HpqANERYGFJehzeyc =+G24 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: The hand in hand with children wording seems to conflate physical space with cyberspace. Please see my relevant reply to George William Herbert. There's a known and ancedotally (but not known to be statistically) significant trend of pedophiles attracting victims online. Also, apparently, of them coordinating amongst themselves to pass tips about possible victims in specific areas. Still, pedophiliac preying (whether on- or offline, not to speak of the coordination thereof) seems marginal at best compared to traditional run-of-the-mill child abuse which involves non-pedophiliac adults often related to the victim looking for substitute sex partners. Should those other potential perpetrators be banned as well? Do we care for their victims as much? And if we assume that it is the parents' duty to supervise their children's access to Wikipedia as content not suitable for them may be displayed, how could there be any danger to them? It would have been so much nicer if there had been a dif- ferent reason to ban this user. Tim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy
Anthony wrote: Also, please address my point that banning self-identified pedophiles from editing merely entourages pedophile editors to *not* identify themselves as such (thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic activities will be overlooked). If that were true, then we wouldn't have banned any self-identified pedophiles, and we won't every ban another one, and this whole conversation is pointless. So...you're justifying the status quo by its existence? No, you asked me to address your point that insert untrue statement. I addressed it by pointing out that it's not true. I expressed my opinion that banning all self-identified pedophiles is ineffectual. I then misinterpreted your response to mean that if this were true, we wouldn't be doing it. Upon further rumination, I now believe that your point was that if we'd convinced all pedophile editors to not publicly disclose their pedophilia, there would be no self-identified pedophiles for us to ban (rendering this discussion moot). Do I now understand correctly? I haven't presented such a scenario. I believe that a natural consequence of the continual bans is that over time, pedophile editors will become less likely to disclose their pedophilia. This means that _fewer_ pedophiles will do so, not that none will (and not that the full effect is instantaneous). [Incidentally, entourages was a typo for encourages.] Both his pedophilia (or claims of pedophilia) and his behavior which led to his first indefinite block are results of his character. I see no reason to wait for the latter when we already know the former. The earlier blocks pertained to mundane infractions of the sort exhibited by countless users. To lump them together with pedophilia is ludicrous (and arguably offensive, as it trivializes pedophilia). And again, those issues had _nothing_ to do with the ban (which would have occurred even if the user had a spotless editing record). We're discussing the appropriateness of the ban rationale, *not* whether this particular editor was an asset to the community. (As I noted, if it were up to me, he probably would have been banned before the pedophilia issue came to light.) To what pro-pedophilia editing are you referring? The part in your comment (thereby increasing the likelihood that problematic activities will be overlooked) How does that pertain to the editor in question? To be clear, you're stating that while you would regard such an act as inappropriate, you believe that the Hindi Wikipedia currently is empowered by the Wikimedia Foundation to ban Pakistani editors if it so chooses. Correct? I'm not completely familiar with the rules of the Hindi Wikipedia, but I assume they have a method of banning which doesn't involve petitioning the Wikimedia Foundation, so yes. I don't know whether you're correct or incorrect, but the latter is my sincere hope. We've come to a consensus, as a community, that some sort of ArbCom rulings are to be followed. 1. Please don't quote me out of context. The above implies that I seek to belittle the ArbCom, and that isn't so. I referred to some sort of ArbCom ruling because the precise nature of the decision is unclear. Contextually, I was stating that the ruling should *not* be ignored. 2. The ArbCom is a consensus-backed body, but its power is far from limitless, and there absolutely is no consensus that its actions should never be questioned. I seek to determine the nature and basis of the policy that the ArbCom is purported to have instituted. Only then would it be appropriate for the community to evaluate whether the committee acted within its authority. There is no assertion that the ArbCom's rulings should not be followed. So you're willing to engage in actions which you believe to be unconscionable if they are effective? No. I don't view this as a black-and-white issue, and I believe that a grey solution is vastly preferable to the realistic alternative. No, I don't see it as a quibble. I'm willing to modify my statement. I agree that we shouldn't judge him/her as one judges someone on trial. Rather, we should judge him/her as one judges someone applying for a volunteer job, collaborating with children, creating an encyclopedia. Do you agree or disagree with that? I regard the statement as overly broad; it is applicable to both physical space and cyberspace, and I believe that some procedures effective in the former are impractical in the latter. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: This is a follow up to my proposal that Fan History Wiki join the wMF family, based on my experiences via e-mail, on the list and on strategy wiki. snip a lot of detail As some one who has proposed a new project for the WMF (which would really probably be an acquisition if it happened), some changes need to be made: 1) Clear procedure for what happens step by step in making such a proposal. Post proposal. Contact people who support your position to vote in favor of it using talk pages on Strategy wiki. After one hundred votes vast in favor with no more than half that total in opposition, project moves to development stages where WMF staff will be in contact with the person making the proposal. Something like that. 2) Clear timeline of what happens and when so that people can plan accordingly 3) Expectations regarding exclusivity of proposal to the WMF during the proposal process. Can people propose it elsewhere or seek acquisition by others while there is an open proposal on Strategy Wiki? snip Regardless of the merits of FanHistory itself -- and I agree with the criticisms others have brought forth for whether the project should join the WMF -- Laura's criticisms of process are legitimate. For all intents and purposes, there is no process for proposing new projects, whether home-grown or brought in from outside. Yes, Wikiversity was created in 2006; it was also pushed through by some extraordinarily dedicated editors (especially user:Cormaggio) who were willing to take part in meta-discussions for *years*. It was also created under the aegis of the Special Projects Committee ([[meta:SPC]] for those who don't remember), which worked with the Wikiversity editors and brought forth a proposal to the Board after much back-and-forth. The SPC doesn't exist anymore, and there's not really anything to take its place (such as it was) that I'm aware of. Even with an expanded Foundation staff, it's unclear what area such proposals would fall under: new projects aren't business development, and they're not really outreach either. High-level strategic development? But clearly not all proposals are created equal, and not all are of potential interest, and not all are fully developed. And it's not at all clear to me that this kind of discussion/decision should even go through the office or board, at least initially; it's really undefined what the community (whatever that means) wants in terms of WMF projects. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a good discussion on the topic of new projects in the community in a long while; I don't know if there has been in board or staff discussions. Questions that I'd like to see discussed on a large scale are: * Do we want any new projects? Right now? In the future? Ever? * If so, do we only want projects that follow traditional reference book models of organizing information? (e.g. Wikiquote, which follows the model of books of quotations) * or perhaps only educational projects? * do all projects have to follow NPOV? What about the other guidelines: NOR, V? * do we only want projects we start ourselves, or would we consider projects started by other organizations? And yes, this could go on the strategy wiki -- but I don't know of a good, unstructured place to have a discussion about such things there (that isn't a specific proposal or strategic objective or whatever). To that end, I'd like to try and revive this meta page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects/process which was started last summer then faded out. I find myself very much in agreement with Phoebe's call for a renewed look at developing a process for new WMF projects. I think that in considering future steps, one middle option that may be considered is the virtual wiki, the namespace-specific subproject that may be hosted at a larger project while still developing its own specific norms. Consider the Wikiversity and Wikijunior projects, both started as virtual wikis on Wikibooks. Wikiversity eventually took its own path, while Wikijunior after some discussion was still felt to be best as part of the mother wiki. I feel that this Wikiversity/Wikijunior model could prove valuable again in the development of new types of WMF reference works, whether they may be also hosted as subprojects of Wikibooks or perhaps of another project. Thanks, Pharos And yes, Laura, to your specific question: if you want to see anything happen with your project anytime soon, I wouldn't pick the WMF. Whether this is a failing of a disorganized, bureaucratic system, or a benefit of a deliberative, community-based system, I leave as an exercise to the reader. best, -- phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com *
Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
Thanks for this repost, Laura. I don't know where 18 months comes from, but it is much much too long :-) It might be more accurate to say that our project proposal process is broken, and we simply need to fix it. The Meta process for requesting a new project is what I have in mind. As philippe pointed out, the Expanding Content task force is meant to address the meta-topic of this thread. The current (broken) process does in its way accomodate both new and adoptive projects -- projects are encouraged to link to demo sites or live communities in their proposal. Laura writes: some changes need to be made: 1) Clear procedure for what happens step by step in making such a proposal. Post proposal. Contact people who support your position to vote in favor... 2) Clear timeline of what happens and when so that people can plan accordingly 3) Expectations regarding exclusivity of proposal to the WMF during the proposal process. Can people propose it elsewhere or seek acquisition by others while there is an open proposal on Strategy Wiki? Yes. 1 and 2 need to be defined, along with any criteria that should be met before starting on 1. It is polite for the Foundation to let people know whether it is worth their time to draft the proposal. As for 3, I don't think anyone would ask for proposals to be exclusive. Similarly, it is polite for the proposer to let the WM community know whether they are serious, or about to pursue some other option instead. On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: The process broke down in the following places: ... 4. No clear point where a proposal is considered dead, beyond silence. 5. Misleading steps in the proposal process that create misconceptions. 6. Connectivity problems between proposals on strategy and meta. 7. Incorrect assumptions regarding Wikipedia needing to apply to all new projects. Also good points. 7 is an ongoing discussion, but the other three points could be addressed with clear process. I apologize for the earlier rambling and lack of clarity regarding what I was attempting to accomplish with my post. I found the background quite informative... Dan Rosenthal writes: I'd toss in there lack of realistic expectations from your project, especially as far as being financially compensated is concerned. This point, the copyright question, and the narrowness of project scope seem like the hardest ones to reconcile. But that doesn't save us from addressing the good points made about fixing the proposal process. Wikimedians could respond quickly with looks interesting, but a) individiual projects don't get dedicated paid staff [since 2002 :)], b) you'll have to pursue a license migration in one of the following ways..., and c) you'd have to frame this as part of a larger-scope 'cultural history' wiki. As a pillar of the free culture community, it might also be useful for us to welcome such interest rather than frustrating it, offering an overview (as a community service) of the options for specialized free knowledge projects that want sustainable hosting/supoport/tool development. Mike.lifeguard writes: I mean to say that since 2006, and perhaps even further back, there have been no proposals which should have been approved. Why do we need a process to handle something which, in essence, *doesn't happen*? I'm not sure what you mean. There are lots of new interesting projects, in line with our mission, that require tools and distributed collaboration to replace proprietary but essential basic knowledge with free knowledge. A number of them have had reasonable proposals made on Meta. Among the projects that developed successfully independent of Wikimedia (most of which are nevertheless less often visited than, say, Wikispecies): Wikikids, Rodovid + WeRelate, AboutUs, Open Library, Wikimapia + OpenStreetMap. Wikimedia as a community could significantly shift the amount of attention devoted to building these and other free-content reference works. We need to decide whether we should. (by the way, this doesn't have to be limited to starting new projects or adopting existing ones; we could find other ways to drive traffic and interested editors to fellow-traveller projects that meet our criteria for furthering our mission. The part where closer collaboration becomes interesting is: It would be great to see wikikids projects in fr, de, es and nl (three independent projects!) develop interwiki links[1]. We could help ensure WeRelate's data is backed up and preserved for generations. Wikimapia might be even more beautiful without its massive ads.) There's nothing wrong with us deciding that any particular Project isn't within Wikimedia's scope, but each of those decisions deserves due consideration. (note that we could decide that a Project like an atlas is very much within our scope, but a specific proposed implementation isn't suitable. Many current proposals got hung up on that
Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
Great analysis SJ. By the way - since we're talking about working with other organisations outside of Wikimedia Projects, there is another Strategic Planning taskforce that people might be interested in weighing in on. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Alliances_and_Partnerships_Task_Force The expanding content one has already been mentioned in this thread but the partnerships and alliances is trying to discuss how the Wikimedia projects/Foundation/community should interact with other projects. Best, -Liam [[witty lama]] wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for this repost, Laura. I don't know where 18 months comes from, but it is much much too long :-) It might be more accurate to say that our project proposal process is broken, and we simply need to fix it. The Meta process for requesting a new project is what I have in mind. As philippe pointed out, the Expanding Content task force is meant to address the meta-topic of this thread. The current (broken) process does in its way accomodate both new and adoptive projects -- projects are encouraged to link to demo sites or live communities in their proposal. Laura writes: some changes need to be made: 1) Clear procedure for what happens step by step in making such a proposal. Post proposal. Contact people who support your position to vote in favor... 2) Clear timeline of what happens and when so that people can plan accordingly 3) Expectations regarding exclusivity of proposal to the WMF during the proposal process. Can people propose it elsewhere or seek acquisition by others while there is an open proposal on Strategy Wiki? Yes. 1 and 2 need to be defined, along with any criteria that should be met before starting on 1. It is polite for the Foundation to let people know whether it is worth their time to draft the proposal. As for 3, I don't think anyone would ask for proposals to be exclusive. Similarly, it is polite for the proposer to let the WM community know whether they are serious, or about to pursue some other option instead. On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: The process broke down in the following places: ... 4. No clear point where a proposal is considered dead, beyond silence. 5. Misleading steps in the proposal process that create misconceptions. 6. Connectivity problems between proposals on strategy and meta. 7. Incorrect assumptions regarding Wikipedia needing to apply to all new projects. Also good points. 7 is an ongoing discussion, but the other three points could be addressed with clear process. I apologize for the earlier rambling and lack of clarity regarding what I was attempting to accomplish with my post. I found the background quite informative... Dan Rosenthal writes: I'd toss in there lack of realistic expectations from your project, especially as far as being financially compensated is concerned. This point, the copyright question, and the narrowness of project scope seem like the hardest ones to reconcile. But that doesn't save us from addressing the good points made about fixing the proposal process. Wikimedians could respond quickly with looks interesting, but a) individiual projects don't get dedicated paid staff [since 2002 :)], b) you'll have to pursue a license migration in one of the following ways..., and c) you'd have to frame this as part of a larger-scope 'cultural history' wiki. As a pillar of the free culture community, it might also be useful for us to welcome such interest rather than frustrating it, offering an overview (as a community service) of the options for specialized free knowledge projects that want sustainable hosting/supoport/tool development. Mike.lifeguard writes: I mean to say that since 2006, and perhaps even further back, there have been no proposals which should have been approved. Why do we need a process to handle something which, in essence, *doesn't happen*? I'm not sure what you mean. There are lots of new interesting projects, in line with our mission, that require tools and distributed collaboration to replace proprietary but essential basic knowledge with free knowledge. A number of them have had reasonable proposals made on Meta. Among the projects that developed successfully independent of Wikimedia (most of which are nevertheless less often visited than, say, Wikispecies): Wikikids, Rodovid + WeRelate, AboutUs, Open Library, Wikimapia + OpenStreetMap. Wikimedia as a community could significantly shift the amount of attention devoted to building these and other free-content reference works. We need to decide whether we should. (by the way, this doesn't have to be limited to starting new projects or adopting existing ones; we could find other ways to drive traffic and interested editors to fellow-traveller projects
Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
Amen! On Dec 2, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: As a pillar of the free culture community, it might also be useful for us to welcome such interest rather than frustrating it, ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
