Re: [Foundation-l] naming of things in kosovo
Yes, sure, but a lot of smaller villages and towns in many countries do not have well-established English names. Besides, what constitutes the English name is a matter of debate - according to law, the official name of Kolkata in English is Kolkata... but then, couldn't Germany pass a law saying that their name in English was Bundesrepublik Deustchland, and would we have to consider that just as English as Kolkata or Thiruvananthapuram (formerly Calcutta and Trivandrum)? Anyhow, referring to things by their conventional English name is the reason we call it Kosovo and not Kosovë or Kosova, the Albanian names; however in cases such as village and town names, names of mountains and bridges, etc. which may have been referred to both ways in English literature or barely mentioned or not mentioned at all in English sources, it's less clear-cut. 2010/11/11 geni geni...@gmail.com: On 11 November 2010 14:26, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Ideally we would use the albanian names and encourage the locals to edit. No ideally we would use the English names. As we have established with say Germany and Norway what the locals happen to call something is of secondary significance. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
Would not opposed or see this as a drama issue. After all it doesn't involve editorial involvement or conflict of interests, it would be clear (and clear to anyone in public) that no editorial influence would be implicated. My only concern is on precedent - is this a good one (we help others in the free knowledge/education world) or a bad one (our bandwidth is open to be used by any forum or website with a story to tell). Would perception and reporting in the media that we altruistically can help others (positive views) or that we take over or dominate others (even if untrue, negative views)? is there any risk that it would be seen as compromising our stance and neutrality (Wikipedia hosts/hosted Citizendium!) :last, I'd look for specific agreement what happens if they cannot regain financial stability and independence. Do they linger indefinitely, or dwindle indefinitely, on WMF servers? Do they start to need other forms of help? Do we get the bad press if we have to shut them down? What if such a situation descends into antipathy (there's been antipathy before, we don't need to invite more in future). Do Citizendium's users get a say or will this be done without their consensus (and hence possibly get anger from some directed at WMF)? For all these reasons I'd want clarity and openness on the various what ifs and how they are agreed to be handled, in a way that all can see that a prior and mutually endorsed decision process was followed in that eventuality. Those would be my questions. They may be fine, but they are the ones I would focus on as deciders, given that bandwidth and tech support will probably not be a huge factor (use their own server or make a spare one available?). FT2 On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 7:56 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Should we offer to host citizendium? Okey get over the instinctive reaction. ==The background== Those who have read this week's signpost will be aware that citizendium is in significant financial difficulties. If not see the end of the briefly section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-08/News_and_notes Now I know we haven't exactly had the best of relationships with citizendium but we are if not distant allies at least interested observers. Their mission and much of their product at this time coincides with ours. ==The proposal== We should offer to host citizendium on our servers at no cost for a period of 1 (one) year offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects. After one year the citizendium community/Editorial Council is expected to have sorted themselves out to the point where they can arrange their own hosting. At which point we lock the database and provide them with the dumps ===The pros=== *It is inline with out mission *It wouldn't cost very much. Given their traffic levels and database size the cost to host would probably be lower than some of our more prolific image uploaders. *It would be possible to effectively give them instacommons *Citizendium is an interesting project and gives us a way to learn what the likely outcome of some alternative approaches would be *It helps with positioning the WMF as more than just wikipedia *It prevents the citizendium project from dying which since they have useful content would be unfortunate ===The cons=== *They may still be on PostgreSQL rather than mysql which could create issues with compatibility *Some of their community are people banned from wikipedia *risk of looking like triumphalism over Larry (can be addressed by making sure jimbo is in no way involved) *keeping control of the relationship between the citizendium community/Editorial Council and the various WMF communities *Handing the password database back at the end of the year would need to be done with care. All in all other than the assuming we can deal with the database issue I think it is something we should do. The citizendium community/Editorial Council may well say no but at least we will have tried. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On 12 November 2010 07:56, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: We should offer to host citizendium on our servers at no cost for a period of 1 (one) year offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects. After one year the citizendium community/Editorial Council is expected to have sorted themselves out to the point where they can arrange their own hosting. At which point we lock the database and provide them with the dumps I strongly support this. The discussion on the RationalWiki talk page continues, with active participation from many Citizens: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Citizendium#WIGOCZ Their current problem is that they have never had to think about this stuff, ever, and suddenly find themselves with no support and desperately gathering cash to pay their ridiculously overpriced hosting ($700/mo). Despite past personal conflicts, CZ is the sort of project we should encourage, i.e. free educational content. It is in fact having other people support our mission. Which is an even bigger win than supporting it ourselves. Thankfully, CZ's techies are quite competent (and Dan Nessett is active in MediaWiki itself, as he tries to bring the CZ software back to mainline), so can presumably sling dumps around with facility. Important points: * Having CZ maintain independence would be essential. CZ would not become a WMF project ... as such. They're just someone who needs help and is in line with our mission. So a 6-month or 12-month time would be quite reasonable to both us and them. * It's unclear as yet who owns the name, who owns the private databases (the password table, private data and so on). This would need to be established. But we should make the offer. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I'm forwarding this message from Cyrano. - On 12/11/2010 02:06, Erik Moeller wrote: A bit of general background: The Collection/Book creator feature allows managing, organizing and exporting content in PDF and in OpenDocument (the latter is still very buggy). We're planning to work with PediaPress to add OpenZIM support (useful for offline readers like Kiwix); EPUB is a possibility. The feature supports pulling specific article revisions, or the current revision, and it has some nice features like automatic suggestion of articles, easy addition of articles to collections while browsing, etc. Although PediaPress are the developers behind the feature, it's completely separate from their services (providing printed books). The code of this feature is open-source and has been reviewed by developers from the community, I assume. It seems that PediaPress was entirely created (their site is from 2006) for the edition of wikipedia books: I couldn't find a single book not written by Wikipedians. So again, what were the so interesting profile of this society... Were other alternatives like http://www.lulu.com/en/about/index.php considered? PediaPress says that A portion of the proceeds of each book will be donated to the Wikimedia Foundation to support their mission. [http://pediapress.com/]. How much exactly? Look at that: PediaPress was founded in July 2007 as a spin-off from brainbot technologies AG and is located in Mainz, Germany. [http://pediapress.com/about/] And brainbot is: This cooperation enables brainbot technologies to rapidly transform state of the art research results into marketable products. [http://brainbot.com/home_en/] Can you see the big picture, the plan? Wikimedians and internauts build the info, and Brainbot/PediaPress/DFKI [http://www.dfki.de/web/welcome?set_language=encl=en] profit on it! Great plan. I'm sure the wikimedians would love to have a say, though. If PediaPress were to disappear tomorrow, we'd continue providing the remaining functionality. In fact, at this point in time, uses of the feature for digital offline distributions are more interesting to us from a strategic point of view than print distribution. Because images and other media quickly inflate any offline export, content selections may often be the more viable method to create digital offline distributions of WP content. The 1,400 selections already compiled using the Collection extension provide a great starting point for this. It's also conceivable to work with validation partners to create trusted selections of content for schools etc. We have a non-exclusive business partnership with PediaPress (a small for-profit company) with regard to their provision of print services, which is commission-based. From a mission standpoint, it's nice for both our audience and our contributors to have the print options available, which is supported by demand (about 2,000 per quarter -- we'll soon have a WikiStats report on book sales) and user feedback. It can also be great outreach tool. In fact, as Tim pointed out, the idea of printed selections is a very old idea that very many Wikipedians have worked on over the years. The goal of the relationship with PediaPress was to have an open toolset that any and all efforts towards print or other export formats could build upon. PediaPress has been a model partner -- they're super-responsive, and interact directly with the community to service all aspects of the technology. I'm personally very pleased that the hardcover and color options are now available. There are so many fantastic photos and illustrations in Wikimedia projects that the black/white books really didn't do them justice. It's certainly not for everyone, but for those of us who like to show our family and friends what this whole Wikipedia thing we spend so much time on is all about, it can be pretty awesome. Kindle or not, a printed book gives a very tangible reality to our efforts. I am certain that this conversation is not about the cover. Our concerns are real. On 12/11/2010 03:32, Tim Starling wrote: On 12/11/10 13:23, MZMcBride wrote: They negotiated with Wikimedia? Where and when? How many thousands of companies would like their links in the sidebar of the fifth most-visited website in the world? Are they really that good at negotiating? On the English Wikipedia, there's a Book namespace and the sidebar has a completely separate print/export section that comes from the Collection extension. That's worth a percentage of the book sales? Potential parternships are assessed by mission-relevance, not just revenue potential. Offline distribution is part of the Foundation's mission, as is open source software development. PediaPress were offering to do those two things. Pediapress is promising a donation for each sell. I think
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On 12 November 2010 08:12, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: My only concern is on precedent - is this a good one (we help others in the free knowledge/education world) or a bad one (our bandwidth is open to be used by any forum or website with a story to tell). Would perception and reporting in the media that we altruistically can help others (positive views) or that we take over or dominate others (even if untrue, negative views)? is there any risk that it would be seen as compromising our stance and neutrality (Wikipedia hosts/hosted Citizendium!) The precedent sounds good to me, actually. In this case, it's helping a wiki that is not only completely in line with our mission, but is presently in dire need. For comparison, let's say OpenStreetMap suddenly went broke. I'd say that in such a hypothetical case, hosting them would be not merely a good thing to do, but the right thing to do. More general hosting of other organisations - the comparison would be with ibiblio.org - would be new, and we'd need the technical human resources, which are barely keeping up with our own needs. (Which is why it's good in this case that CZ's techies are eminently competent.) But that's different from helping an organisation with comparable goals that happens to be in dire present need. For all these reasons I'd want clarity and openness on the various what ifs and how they are agreed to be handled, in a way that all can see that a prior and mutually endorsed decision process was followed in that eventuality. CZ now has a management council and an Editor in Chief (Daniel Mietchen), so there is someone who can actually decide such things and work out the deal. Though as I noted, it's unclear who owns the name Citizendium, for example. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
Hoi, Providing help to an organisation that can be considered part of the Wikimedia movement makes sense. The issue with Citizendium is that they explicitly distance themselves from many of the basic corner stones of what has made Wikipedia what it is. Citizendium does not add anything to our own projects and given the existing policies for new projects it is a competing project to the English language Wikipedia and as such it is a third encyclopaedic project in the English language. This makes for a limited offer of help ie no adoption. The notion that Jimmy should not be involved in order to prevent triumphalism is naive. Even when he is not to be involved, he will be asked by the press to comment. He may and he will. Asking him not to be involved is not feasible because as a board member it is his job to have an opinion and be part of the decision process. It should also be clear that he will certainly not be the only one who will see this mishap of Citizendium as a vindication of the Wikimedia model. Giving Citizendium a breathing space for a limited time period is fine with me. This should in my opinion be on the basis of providing them hosting on iron. Iron separate from the WMF infra structure. When it is to be for a limited time period, it should be plain what happens when such a time period will be exceeded. grin I would even like the idea of us helping encyclopaedia Brittanica in a similar way /grin Thanks, GerardM On 12 November 2010 08:56, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Should we offer to host citizendium? Okey get over the instinctive reaction. ==The background== Those who have read this week's signpost will be aware that citizendium is in significant financial difficulties. If not see the end of the briefly section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-08/News_and_notes Now I know we haven't exactly had the best of relationships with citizendium but we are if not distant allies at least interested observers. Their mission and much of their product at this time coincides with ours. ==The proposal== We should offer to host citizendium on our servers at no cost for a period of 1 (one) year offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects. After one year the citizendium community/Editorial Council is expected to have sorted themselves out to the point where they can arrange their own hosting. At which point we lock the database and provide them with the dumps ===The pros=== *It is inline with out mission *It wouldn't cost very much. Given their traffic levels and database size the cost to host would probably be lower than some of our more prolific image uploaders. *It would be possible to effectively give them instacommons *Citizendium is an interesting project and gives us a way to learn what the likely outcome of some alternative approaches would be *It helps with positioning the WMF as more than just wikipedia *It prevents the citizendium project from dying which since they have useful content would be unfortunate ===The cons=== *They may still be on PostgreSQL rather than mysql which could create issues with compatibility *Some of their community are people banned from wikipedia *risk of looking like triumphalism over Larry (can be addressed by making sure jimbo is in no way involved) *keeping control of the relationship between the citizendium community/Editorial Council and the various WMF communities *Handing the password database back at the end of the year would need to be done with care. All in all other than the assuming we can deal with the database issue I think it is something we should do. The citizendium community/Editorial Council may well say no but at least we will have tried. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Providing help to an organisation that can be considered part of the Wikimedia movement makes sense. The issue with Citizendium is that they explicitly distance themselves from many of the basic corner stones of what has made Wikipedia what it is. Which cornerstone is that? -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:37 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Liam Wyatt wrote: I suspect that the issue lies not with the fact that you are only a couple of clicks away from the PediaPress bookprinting service from every Wikipedia article, but more the fact that the PediaPress system is the *only *service listed on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Book As Erik mentioned in the previous email, the relationship with PediaPress is non-exclusive and entirely independent from the Book Creator code. I enjoyed your examples of for-profit companies' products being integrated with Wikimedia. I wonder, if a company like CafePress wanted to sell Wikimedia apparel and would donate a percentage of their revenue to Wikimedia, would they get a sidebar link (or section) as well? The response from Erik seems to be well, having printed copies of our work makes us feel good, which is perfectly fine, but so does a fitted T-shirt with the Wikipedia logo on the front. Would a company like CafePress be allowed to have a link in the sidebar to their Wikimedia-related products? What are the exact criteria for getting to be only a couple of clicks away for millions of visitors? Wikimedia is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit foundation dedicated to bringing free content to the world. For us, PediaPress brings free (as in freedom) content to the world. CafePress brings T-shirts to the world. You might be able to spot the difference. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We work on it online, because that is the most efficient and convenient way to do it. I have an offline copy of it on my iPhone. I have an (outdated) German DVD with a copy. Many people have WikiReaders. I am sure many people without net access would be happy with a single-volume Wikipedia V1.0 desk encyclopaedia. If a company would take the export function and write an open source extension to produce multi-platform DVDs that allow you to browse a snapshot of the selected articles, their link should go right next to the PediaPress one. Magnus ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On 12 November 2010 10:13, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: grin I would even like the idea of us helping encyclopaedia Brittanica in a similar way /grin Thanks, GerardM Brittanica may or may not be in need of some help, I don't know. But the Norwegian equivalent Store Norske Leksikon is definitely in need of some help. The publishing company have made an unsuccessful attempt at getting governmental financial aid after about a year of offering an advertisement-supported portal with an alternative way to involve the public in extending it. With not only one, but two 5+ Norwegian language Wikipedias to compete against, that attempt lasted about a year when they found that they would not succeed alone. The government has refused to help, but they gave the source away, and now some private money - 30 MNOK - is available for the resulting project for the next 3 years. I don't think they are anywhere near wanting our help, but I as a Wikipedian in the biggest of the two Norwegian Wikipedias, no.wikipedia.org, I would definitely have been supportive of giving aid in the form of hosting. We have become the superpower, and that gives us a moral obligation to think beyond our own projects. Among the things we ought to be wary of is monoculture. If Wikipedia becomes the only source for encyclopaedic information, not only does that make the world poorer, but it makes our own projects poorer. Wikipedia needs the competition, if for no other reason than for strengthening ourselves. Hans A. Rosbach no:user:haros ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
2010/11/12 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Providing help to an organisation that can be considered part of the Wikimedia movement makes sense. The issue with Citizendium is that they explicitly distance themselves from many of the basic corner stones of what has made Wikipedia what it is. Which cornerstone is that? I think the most serious problem with them is that they do not follow NPOV. Instead they follow a kind of biased-sympathetic-expert-POV. The mechanism in which they have an expert leaders who can make final editoral decissions made them vulnerable to these experts POV. It produces devasting results in some humanities areas as well as some other controversial issues. If you have diffrent POV than the expert in charge of the article you cannot overcome that obvious POV because you are merely a non-expert citizen. For example see their article about homeopathy, which is terribly pro-homeopathy biased: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy because the final shape of the article was in charge of the person who is active pro-homeopathy advocate and proved to be expert by providing a diploma in homeopathy issued by one of the US homeopathy organisation. Therefore, scientific mainstream medical POV over the issue is almost ignored. Anyway, I think it is worth helping Citzendium, but in a way to leave their editorial policy freedom and clearly state, that they are not going to be Wikimedia project, but they are a different approach, interesting but not in line with some of our basic values such as anyone can edit on equal base and NPOV. -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:56 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2010 07:56, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: We should offer to host citizendium on our servers at no cost for a period of 1 (one) year offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects. After one year the citizendium community/Editorial Council is expected to have sorted themselves out to the point where they can arrange their own hosting. At which point we lock the database and provide them with the dumps I strongly support this. +1 Magnus ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
Hi all; *In the case that Citizendium is going to close*, that I'm not sure yet, I think that we have two debates. 1) Offering hosting to Citizendium 2) Preserving the articles and images. About the first question. I doubt WMF is going to offer hosting to Citizendium. When Wikipedia passed Nupedia, it was forgot gradually, and finally closed. I don't know if WMF has thought to revive Nupedia, but I don't think so. Wikipedia and her sister projects have an open design, everyone can edit. Citizendium is not so open, it is an expert-written encyclopedia, so, I don't think that it is a good idea to host such a project together with WMF wikis. About the second question. I think that there is no doubt, we (interested people) have to preserve the data. *If Citizendium closes*, it would be nice that WMF hosts a frozen copy of Citizendium in English Wikisource, as I requested for Nupedia articles some weeks ago[1] (with little support). The same for the two unique GNUPedia articles available.[2] This is part of the human history trying to write an Internet encyclopedia. Also, we can try to merge the contain of Citizendium into Wikipedia. Interested people can download the current versions (not the complete history : () of the articles here.[3] The bz2 is ok, but I can't unpack the gzip one (correupted or not really a gzip file?). Also, I'm downloading every single image from Citizendium, about 8000, and their description pages which contain the license and uploader info. Regards, emijrp [1] http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptoriumdiff=prevoldid=2014056 [2] http://toolserver.org/~emijrp/wikipediaarchive/#gne [3] http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Downloads 2010/11/12 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/11/12 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Providing help to an organisation that can be considered part of the Wikimedia movement makes sense. The issue with Citizendium is that they explicitly distance themselves from many of the basic corner stones of what has made Wikipedia what it is. Which cornerstone is that? I think the most serious problem with them is that they do not follow NPOV. Instead they follow a kind of biased-sympathetic-expert-POV. Is that systematic, symptomatic or merely evidenced in a small set of articles? I've seen lots of people point out specific problems with their content, but we have many problem articles too. Anyway, I think it is worth helping Citzendium, but in a way to leave their editorial policy freedom and clearly state, that they are not going to be Wikimedia project, but they are a different approach, interesting but not in line with some of our basic values such as anyone can edit on equal base and NPOV. I agree with everything except whether or not they are in line with our basic values. They may not align with Wikipedia's values, but as a separate project they dont need to be; instead they need to fit within the core values that all our projects have in common. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values -- John Vandenberg ___ 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] Should we offer to host citizendium?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/11/2010 07:40, Magnus Manske wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:56 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2010 07:56, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: We should offer to host citizendium on our servers at no cost for a period of 1 (one) year offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects. After one year the citizendium community/Editorial Council is expected to have sorted themselves out to the point where they can arrange their own hosting. At which point we lock the database and provide them with the dumps I strongly support this. +1 It seems a very good and healthy idea. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3RxMAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LIVkH/2xiNLlUackYRMixrmDJauBQ SVo9zLt5JIBYZIk+iPLGiIgXaNxp0bTc/KTwSfGxxGoZKKzq1aXuFDvLU8hDJ006 BvNuovPQQx+rh56NJYUgZW/3A9M47YesogTaTfRxwhPZO2NmLrQnqhjGtfNTgMV9 DvyV7zhHdSWO1OiCzoFeJ+7SlCtnA3ikzjAarUdA3y3xglrfWZgY0wo4BDoLw43T d87juvtA5+vfSPJo/eU3R/GT0n9niuXDJUFbeUqwhBsdfslfyON2+xVpNEYYwm1V hVUbPCKLVzdDQ3N4Q0+q1wHLSKCUxHrv98erq7skbi/WhR8jlOx7z1WvQ6RsFWo= =FdNd -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
Should we offer to host citizendium? Sure, and not on a temporary basis either. Just don't put Larry back in charge... Of us, that is. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
In business I have found that the most successful companies are those that reach out, build relationships with, and where possible help others that are compatible. So this makes very strong sense to me. The main thing would be making sure it is clear in the media that we do so as an educational charity, ie by grant or collaborative agreement or whatever. So that it helps explain what we stand for (most people know us as an encyclopedia, not even a volunteer non-profit!). There is an issue of market positioning here, or changing perception of a position, and it needs careful handling to ensure it's communicated. A corporate making such a move publicly for the first time would probably put out a press announcement or conference to ensure there was enough attendance and attention that its central points were properly heard. WMF could do worse than do that too. Some prime time coverage of WMF CEO: As one of the worlds largest volunteer educational charity movements in human numbers, we have begun supporting other compatible movements in order to ensure a healthy provision of many different sources of free information. Our first (1/2/3) projects supported are (A/B/C), would do the job.. FT2 On 11/12/10, Hans A. Rosbach hans.a.rosb...@gmail.com wrote: We have become the superpower, and that gives us a moral obligation to think beyond our own projects. Among the things we ought to be wary of is monoculture. If Wikipedia becomes the only source for encyclopaedic information, not only does that make the world poorer, but it makes our own projects poorer. Wikipedia needs the competition, if for no other reason than for strengthening ourselves. Hans A. Rosbach ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
What people seem to have been stepping around in this thread so far is the fact that Pediapress's software chain includes some components that they have NOT released as open source. There seems to be ongoing confusion about this. If there was an open source toolchain for doing what Pediapress currently does, then Wikimedia itself or any third party organization or individual could use it to create manuscripts suitable for printing, and use any printer they liked to achieve that end. I think the crux of the argument should be: is it OK for Wikimedia to have a partnership with a service provider who uses closed source software as an integral part of the service they provide. Pediapress sets a precedent that says yes, that's completely fine. And maybe it is, but it is then just wrong to refer to this as an open source way of working. On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: If we're concerned about the WMF referring in its blog to a for-profit organisation that happens to be working with us in a way that is open-source, offline and furthering our mission to distribute our content widely, why did no one complain about the OpenMoko Wikireader being in the WMF blog: ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On 12 November 2010 12:27, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Some prime time coverage of WMF CEO: As one of the worlds largest volunteer educational charity movements in human numbers, we have begun supporting other compatible movements in order to ensure a healthy provision of many different sources of free information. Our first (1/2/3) projects supported are (A/B/C), would do the job.. Probably we should ask Danese first, she'd have to make sure we had the techs and resources on hand for the hosting! We're not Rackspace and we shouldn't be. We're not ibiblio, though perhaps being that slightly would be good. In any case, hosting projects that are actually in distress (temporarily or more permanently) would be a good thing to do *if* we have the technical capacity. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
Hello, I just cannot imagine that Larry Sanger could bear to see his beloved Citizendium on a Wikimedia server, among all that child pornography he is supposing there. Kind regards Ziko 2010/11/12 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: On 12 November 2010 12:27, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Some prime time coverage of WMF CEO: As one of the worlds largest volunteer educational charity movements in human numbers, we have begun supporting other compatible movements in order to ensure a healthy provision of many different sources of free information. Our first (1/2/3) projects supported are (A/B/C), would do the job.. Probably we should ask Danese first, she'd have to make sure we had the techs and resources on hand for the hosting! We're not Rackspace and we shouldn't be. We're not ibiblio, though perhaps being that slightly would be good. In any case, hosting projects that are actually in distress (temporarily or more permanently) would be a good thing to do *if* we have the technical capacity. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On 12 November 2010 14:57, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote: I just cannot imagine that Larry Sanger could bear to see his beloved Citizendium on a Wikimedia server, among all that child pornography he is supposing there. It's not his any more. (Part of their problem is that he micromanaged it so closely no-one else knew just how dire its financial situation was until just recently.) Though he still controls the domain name. This is part of why establishing the ownership of the name is important. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
Point her to this thread? If it isn't needed this time it may be salient not too far in future for other things. FT2 On 11/12/10, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Probably we should ask Danese first, she'd have to make sure we had the techs and resources on hand for the hosting! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
In a message dated 11/12/2010 2:13:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, jay...@gmail.com writes: I agree with everything except whether or not they are in line with our basic values. They may not align with Wikipedia's values, but as a separate project they dont need to be; instead they need to fit within the core values that all our projects have in common. And they don't. As pointed out they have POV and also they are credentialist. They do not invite the world to contribute, they effectively bar the majority of the world from contributing. They are not a meritocracy. They are instead an authoritarian oligarchy. Of course the same criticism has been leveled at us, but then we don't actually engrain it in our principle policies. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 2:56 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Should we offer to host citizendium? Nah, let them go to Wikia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] What can we do? (was: Copyright terms, again)
On 11 November 2010 19:25, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: In relation to the intersection, I suppose that the most of Europe switched from 50 to 70 years after author's death during the end of 1990s or beginning of 2000s. It creates a gap between a couple and almost 10 years for works which are free according to the local copyright laws. Not always. Czech Copyright Act of 2000 has switched the duration from 50 to 70 years pma, but it renewed the copyright on those works which had fallen into the public domain because of the previous law. The transitional provisions of the act read “[…] Where the term of duration of these rights has expired before the date on which this Act comes into effect, the term shall be renewed as from the date on which this Act comes into effect for the remaining period. […]” http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=126153 Maybe more states opted for such a renewal. -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Joe Corneli holtzerman...@gmail.com wrote: What people seem to have been stepping around in this thread so far is the fact that Pediapress's software chain includes some components that they have NOT released as open source. There seems to be ongoing confusion about this. If there was an open source toolchain for doing what Pediapress currently does, then Wikimedia itself or any third party organization or individual could use it to create manuscripts suitable for printing, and use any printer they liked to achieve that end. I think the crux of the argument should be: is it OK for Wikimedia to have a partnership with a service provider who uses closed source software as an integral part of the service they provide. Pediapress sets a precedent that says yes, that's completely fine. And maybe it is, but it is then just wrong to refer to this as an open source way of working. Wikimedia policy is to use only free software, at least on the customer-facing side. That includes the PDF-generation process, which runs on our servers AFAIK. Requiring this from sites we (in essence) link to seems excessive. We link to Google Maps via an intermediate page, similar to PediaPress, and their code is not 100% open source either, last time I looked. Cheers, Magnus ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
2010/11/12 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/11/12 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, Providing help to an organisation that can be considered part of the Wikimedia movement makes sense. The issue with Citizendium is that they explicitly distance themselves from many of the basic corner stones of what has made Wikipedia what it is. Which cornerstone is that? I think the most serious problem with them is that they do not follow NPOV. Instead they follow a kind of biased-sympathetic-expert-POV. Is that systematic, symptomatic or merely evidenced in a small set of articles? I've seen lots of people point out specific problems with their content, but we have many problem articles too. Yes, of course But the difference is that we normally do not block articles at the stage which was decieded by the expert to be perfect. Homeopathy is their official approved article. Anyway when I randomly examined their approved artices they are in general OK. No more biased than on average in Wikipedia. Cleaner and more consistent the the ones in Wikipedia but usually no so detailed and having quite often kind of summary at the end, which tends to be an expert final essay about the issue. I agree with everything except whether or not they are in line with our basic values. They may not align with Wikipedia's values, but as a separate project they dont need to be; instead they need to fit within the core values that all our projects have in common. So, if our core value is NPOV understood as being independent from political or religous POV i think they are with some their fixations which is the result of their editing mechanism, not due to their general intention. In fact I can agree we have similar problems, although IMHO there is more hope to solve them due to our opennes :-) If our core value is to be open for editing by anyone - they claim they are, but in fact they are rather not. We claim but in fact we usually (not always, see the list of blocked articles or revised versions) are :-) With all other core values - i.e providing knowledge to all for free, open licence policy, being independent from govermental/bussiness influences - they perfectly fit with us. -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
An'n 12.11.2010 08:56, hett geni schreven: Should we offer to host citizendium? Headlines of tomorrow: Wikipedia buys out competitor. Chucked-out Editor-in-Chief Larry Sanger says: They try to defend their de-facto information monopoly before their challengers become too strong. Or something like that. Okay, pure speculation. But I don't think it's a good idea to host them. If we want to keep them for the innovative effects of competition we should keep them organizationally separate from Wikimedia. If Wikimedians want to rescue them: donate money to them. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
Wikimedia policy is to use only free software, at least on the customer-facing side. That includes the PDF-generation process, which runs on our servers AFAIK. Requiring this from sites we (in essence) link to seems excessive. We link to Google Maps via an intermediate page, similar to PediaPress, and their code is not 100% open source either, last time I looked. I'm just saying the reason to kvetch about Pediapress is not that they produce books or that they are a company that makes money. The more serious complaint is that they are presently have monopoly status, and that this monopoly is mostly made possible because there is no free/open source toolchain that does what they offer. There's nothing to stop the interested party from linking to OpenStreetMap (http://www.openstreetmap.org/) instead of Google Maps, and their code is available too (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/The_Rails_Port). But in any case, no one refers to Google Maps as an open source product. Referring to something as open source when it isn't is a bad practice. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: If Wikimedians want to rescue them: donate money to them. DN-PHP-6004: This organization's DonateNow service has been temporarily disabled. Please contact this organization for other donation options. (https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=15045) If Wikimedians want to rescue them: teach them how to make a full history dump. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
2010/11/12 Joe Corneli holtzerman...@gmail.com: I'm just saying the reason to kvetch about Pediapress is not that they produce books or that they are a company that makes money. The more serious complaint is that they are presently have monopoly status, and that this monopoly is mostly made possible because there is no free/open source toolchain that does what they offer. What's open: - the Collection extension - the MediaWiki parser (mwlib) - export support for PDF (via ReportLab), ODT, DocBook, XHTML at different states of completeness; PDF being the only one I would characterize as mature - a few helper tools (All the code used on WMF servers plus some code not currently used by us.) Available via: http://code.pediapress.com/git/ What's proprietary: - the LaTeX export used by PediaPress.com for rendering printed books - all aspects of the PediaPress.com web service I'd love for the LaTeX export to be made available as open source as well. Heiko and I have talked a few times about this -- obviously it's understandable why they prefer to at least keep some secret sauce. Policy-wise, what's key to us is that everything running on the WMF side is open, but it'd be in the spirit of the partnership to make the full toolchain open source (ideally without killing a tiny company that's done all the work in favor of a bigger one benefiting from it). -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:56 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Their current problem is that they have never had to think about this stuff, ever, and suddenly find themselves with no support and desperately gathering cash to pay their ridiculously overpriced hosting ($700/mo). There is no reason that site shouldn't run on a moderately priced VPS. I'm talking in the $100/mo range, or less, even. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On 12 November 2010 17:37, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: An'n 12.11.2010 08:56, hett geni schreven: Should we offer to host citizendium? Headlines of tomorrow: Wikipedia buys out competitor. Chucked-out Editor-in-Chief Larry Sanger says: They try to defend their de-facto information monopoly before their challengers become too strong. Or something like that. It doesn't actually accuse us of any criminal activity. So by our standards not to bad. Okay, pure speculation. But I don't think it's a good idea to host them. If we want to keep them for the innovative effects of competition we should keep them organizationally separate from Wikimedia. That is rather dependent on their continuing to exist. If Wikimedians want to rescue them: donate money to them. In this case throwing money at the problem isn't going to work. There are deeper issues. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On 12 November 2010 18:11, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: There is no reason that site shouldn't run on a moderately priced VPS. I'm talking in the $100/mo range, or less, even. In theory yes. In practice there are organizational issues. The point of offering temporary hosting is that it allows them to come up with a good solution rather than what is at best likely to be a hasty kludge. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
I'd love for the LaTeX export to be made available as open source as well. Heiko and I have talked a few times about this -- obviously it's understandable why they prefer to at least keep some secret sauce. Policy-wise, what's key to us is that everything running on the WMF side is open, but it'd be in the spirit of the partnership to make the full toolchain open source (ideally without killing a tiny company that's done all the work in favor of a bigger one benefiting from it). But the thing is, it's not really so much of a secret, i.e., one of these days someone will write a free/open LaTeX export and that will be that. Pediapress will then have to rethink their business model. Or they could get started rethinking it now, and once they've gotten it sorted out, they could just release their LaTeX export and be done with it. So, in order to help them out, we should ask, what IS the business model in the endgame where proprietary code isn't part of the picture? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On 12 November 2010 18:11, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:56 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Their current problem is that they have never had to think about this stuff, ever, and suddenly find themselves with no support and desperately gathering cash to pay their ridiculously overpriced hosting ($700/mo). There is no reason that site shouldn't run on a moderately priced VPS. I'm talking in the $100/mo range, or less, even. Dude. We *know*. That's what Trent from RationalWiki has been saying to them over and over - he knows what it costs to run a MediaWiki site that size, because RW is one! Whoever got them to sign up for $700/mo hosting and five redundant servers did them like a dinner. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: These are all questions which would have to be answered before WMF should even consider getting involved. To cover itself legally it should have the agreement of Larry Sanger, the Tides Center, and at least a majority of the Management Counsel (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Management_Council). This would be WMF j ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: These are all questions which would have to be answered before WMF should even consider getting involved. To cover itself legally it should have the agreement of Larry Sanger, the Tides Center, and at least a majority of the Management Counsel (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Management_Council). This would be WMF just providing ISP services for free, no more liable than Slicehost presently are. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] And if I don't understand Dutch?
Hello, Just a minute ago I saw the fundraiser sitenotice of this year. A friendly, yet not too friendly, looking Jimmy Wales - much better than the word heavy notices from last year. I am a German living in the Netherlands, my browser is germanized, and I was on the de.wp and clicked on that message in German. But then I got a landingsite in Dutch. Okay, I have heard about the rationale and the negotiations between the Foundation and chapters. Still, what if I am German being by hazard in the Netherlands, and I don't even understand Dutch? At least a button Seite auf Deutsch (or Page in English) would be nice. :-) Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] And if I don't understand Dutch?
Hi Ziko, Each chapter builds their own landing pages, but they have the ability to build them in as many languages as they'd like. In this case, it looks like the Dutch didn't build a German language landing page, and so it defaulted to their dutch language one. :) pb On Nov 12, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: Hello, Just a minute ago I saw the fundraiser sitenotice of this year. A friendly, yet not too friendly, looking Jimmy Wales - much better than the word heavy notices from last year. I am a German living in the Netherlands, my browser is germanized, and I was on the de.wp and clicked on that message in German. But then I got a landingsite in Dutch. Okay, I have heard about the rationale and the negotiations between the Foundation and chapters. Still, what if I am German being by hazard in the Netherlands, and I don't even understand Dutch? At least a button Seite auf Deutsch (or Page in English) would be nice. :-) Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande ___ 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] And if I don't understand Dutch?
This is a serious issue, that is not specific to the Dutch landing page. It's great to have local chapters participate in the Fundraiser. But they have to follow a few guidelines in order to provide a usable and efficient donation page. There are several similar problems with other local landing pages. For example, As you may see at this donation page for readers in Switzerlandhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=WMFJA1/CHutm_source=2010_JA1_Banner2utm_medium=sitenoticeutm_campaign=fridayOpeningreferrer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3AWikiProject_Accessibility%2FNavigation_menuor its capture at ImageShack http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/1552/fundraiser2010ch.png, there is no obvious nor visible form or link to donate to the MWF nor Wikimedia CH. The link to donate to the WMF is in small, at the bottom of the page. The only way to donate provided by the Swiss chapter Wikimedia CH is the old-fashioned bank check http://www.wikimedia.ch/Donate/en. There is no online form to donate, no Paypal, and so forth. This is horrible, I would never want to go trough all the troubles to make a donation with a bank check. This is Internet, in fall 2010. Not the 90's. I suggest three major guidelines: 1. The chapter landing page must be translated into the official language(s) of the country, plus English. In addition, translation into every major languages spoken in the country would be appreciated. 2. There must be an explicit and obvious way to donate online, via a credit card or Paypal. 3. Let the user choose if he wants to donate to the local chapter, or the WMF. Both should be as obvious, and one option should not be voluntarily set aside. Kind regards, Rodan Bury / Dodoïste 2010/11/12 Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org Hi Ziko, Each chapter builds their own landing pages, but they have the ability to build them in as many languages as they'd like. In this case, it looks like the Dutch didn't build a German language landing page, and so it defaulted to their dutch language one. :) pb On Nov 12, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: Hello, Just a minute ago I saw the fundraiser sitenotice of this year. A friendly, yet not too friendly, looking Jimmy Wales - much better than the word heavy notices from last year. I am a German living in the Netherlands, my browser is germanized, and I was on the de.wp and clicked on that message in German. But then I got a landingsite in Dutch. Okay, I have heard about the rationale and the negotiations between the Foundation and chapters. Still, what if I am German being by hazard in the Netherlands, and I don't even understand Dutch? At least a button Seite auf Deutsch (or Page in English) would be nice. :-) Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk Niederlande ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudh...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Oh, well what's the point of that? Might as well just give them money, as the WMF would just be purchasing those ISP services from someone else anyway. Geni mentioned offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects, which is most definitely *not* just providing ISP services. Yep, better offer them a short-term grant to cover hosting costs than deal with ethical and legal issues. Anirudh Bhati Yeah. Problem with that is that they don't yet exist. Apparently donations through paypal are going to the personal paypal account of Milton Beychok, because in the 4 years since Citizendium was founded they never even bothered to incorporate (or even set up an unincorporated association). They've been using the tax ID of the Tides Center, and the Tides Center has cut them off, for reasons which have still not come to light. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
I suggest that we look for ways to help them. That is not necessarily by doing their hosting, although i don' t oppose to it. There are other ways to help them, for example by using our network to find other and cheaper hosting providers, helping them to find some friendly organization that wants to support them, or helping to find them a sponsor. kind regards teun spaans On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:56 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: Should we offer to host citizendium? Okey get over the instinctive reaction. ==The background== Those who have read this week's signpost will be aware that citizendium is in significant financial difficulties. If not see the end of the briefly section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-08/News_and_notes Now I know we haven't exactly had the best of relationships with citizendium but we are if not distant allies at least interested observers. Their mission and much of their product at this time coincides with ours. ==The proposal== We should offer to host citizendium on our servers at no cost for a period of 1 (one) year offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects. After one year the citizendium community/Editorial Council is expected to have sorted themselves out to the point where they can arrange their own hosting. At which point we lock the database and provide them with the dumps ===The pros=== *It is inline with out mission *It wouldn't cost very much. Given their traffic levels and database size the cost to host would probably be lower than some of our more prolific image uploaders. *It would be possible to effectively give them instacommons *Citizendium is an interesting project and gives us a way to learn what the likely outcome of some alternative approaches would be *It helps with positioning the WMF as more than just wikipedia *It prevents the citizendium project from dying which since they have useful content would be unfortunate ===The cons=== *They may still be on PostgreSQL rather than mysql which could create issues with compatibility *Some of their community are people banned from wikipedia *risk of looking like triumphalism over Larry (can be addressed by making sure jimbo is in no way involved) *keeping control of the relationship between the citizendium community/Editorial Council and the various WMF communities *Handing the password database back at the end of the year would need to be done with care. All in all other than the assuming we can deal with the database issue I think it is something we should do. The citizendium community/Editorial Council may well say no but at least we will have tried. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] And if I don't understand Dutch?
On 12.11.2010 20:53, Rodan Bury wrote: There are several similar problems with other local landing pages. For example, As you may see at this donation page for readers in Switzerlandhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=WMFJA1/CHutm_source=2010_JA1_Banner2utm_medium=sitenoticeutm_campaign=fridayOpeningreferrer=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3AWikiProject_Accessibility%2FNavigation_menuor its capture at ImageShackhttp://img830.imageshack.us/img830/1552/fundraiser2010ch.png, there is no obvious nor visible form or link to donate to the MWF nor Wikimedia CH. The link to donate to the WMF is in small, at the bottom of the page. The only way to donate provided by the Swiss chapter Wikimedia CH is the old-fashioned bank checkhttp://www.wikimedia.ch/Donate/en. There is no online form to donate, no Paypal, and so forth. Bank check ? This is not a bank check. What is suggested is that people should make an online donation using ebanking. Now, for the record, this was a specific request from the Swiss chapter. Last year, without accepting credit card, Wikimedia CH got the highest per capita donations among all chapters -- and, at the same time, we probably paid the lowest fees per donation among all chapters. So we specifically requested that Swiss people can pay by ebanking (or other ways of paying money to our bank account), since this is by far the most common way of donating in Switzerland (see for example www.bonheur.ch, one of the most well-known charities in the country -- what you see on the main page is a red payment slip with the account number, before any credit card option). We added the link to the WMF donation page (as you noticed) so that people can still donate by credit card. We could also easily add a form, but the point is: we do not want to give priority to an online payment gateway when ebanking works so well. This is horrible, I would never want to go trough all the troubles to make a donation with a bank check. This is Internet, in fall 2010. Not the 90's. I am sorry if you don't like it. As written above, the page where you can make your donation at the WMF is only one click away. However, many Swiss donors do not agree with you: you would have no idea how many people actually requested that we send them a *printed* payment slip so that they can make their donation. We do not want to lose these (often large) donations. Bottom line is: we think this system allows people to donate easily, the way they are used to do it, it limits the fees we have to pay, and it still keeps options open for those who want to make a credit card payment. Looks good to me. I suggest three major guidelines: 1. The chapter landing page must be translated into the official language(s) of the country, plus English. In addition, translation into every major languages spoken in the country would be appreciated. Wikimedia CH does that: German, French, Italian and English. You're welcome ! 2. There must be an explicit and obvious way to donate online, via a credit card or Paypal. We will setup a payment gateway, but whatever happens, it won't be the donation method that we will suggest in priority. And Paypal is expensive and not as trustworthy as we would like (especially when one is used to the Swiss banking system :-) 3. Let the user choose if he wants to donate to the local chapter, or the WMF. Both should be as obvious, and one option should not be voluntarily set aside. There is no point doing this. Broadly speaking, people want to donate to Wikipedia and anything else is confusing (and not worth doing, since the chapters share their revenues with the WMF anyway). A concrete example of problem: several people made a donation to the WMF last year, and then asked Wikimedia CH for a tax receipt that we were not able to provide. They were not happy. Allowing them to choose where their donation goes with only make things worse. Frédéric ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
geni writes: We should offer to host citizendium on our servers at no cost for a period of 1 (one) year... After one year the citizendium community/Editorial Council is expected to have sorted themselves out Sage writes: I'm one ocean late to this conversation, but I'll give a big +1 offering to host Citizendium... They wouldn't be a WMF project, and so wouldn't need to adhere exactly to all the core Wikimedia values. An offer of support would be thoughtful and appropriate. It seems that what they really need is expert help in rearranging their hosting so that it isn't so expensive. I suspect they would prefer to maintain their server independently. Emijr writes: I think that there is no doubt, we (interested people) have to preserve the data. *If Citizendium closes* it would be nice that WMF hosts a frozen copy of Citizendium in English Wikisource, as I requested for Nupedia articles some weeks ago Absolutely. I restarted your Nupedia discussion, which seems like a good idea.[1] We can also lend a hand where appropriate before projects close. Regarding projects having 'different values': While pursuing our mission, getting other projects to adopt 'our' values may not always be the best outcome. Our wiki-culture is sometimes described as a monoculture, and a barrier to the growth and balance of our community. Diversity of approaches to collaboration is healthy, whether friendly or competitive. SJ [1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Nupedia ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Anirudh Bhati anirudh...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Oh, well what's the point of that? Might as well just give them money, as the WMF would just be purchasing those ISP services from someone else anyway. Geni mentioned offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects, which is most definitely *not* just providing ISP services. Yep, better offer them a short-term grant to cover hosting costs than deal with ethical and legal issues. I like this idea best. WMF are running a huge fundraising appeal now. We can easily spare $2100 in order to pay for their current hosting arrangements for the next three months, which should give them sufficient time to get themselves back on their feet again. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
In a message dated 11/12/2010 2:06:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, jay...@gmail.com writes: WMF are running a huge fundraising appeal now. We can easily spare $2100 in order to pay for their current hosting arrangements for the next three months, which should give them sufficient time to get themselves back on their feet again. Yes those 14,000 articles out of which 180 have passed strict expert review are certainly enormously more important to us, than just... I don't know... using that money to improve our own project. So we're paying ten bucks an article now? I know several people who could use that ten bucks. Citizendium, of all wiki forks, is perhaps the *least* worth our time and money. That's just my opinion. W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:05 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: WMF are running a huge fundraising appeal now. We can easily spare $2100 in order to pay for their current hosting arrangements for the next three months, which should give them sufficient time to get themselves back on their feet again. As I've pointed out above, they don't even seem to yet exist, and they are certainly not a 501(c)(3) organization. Right now one of their members, Milton Beychok, is collecting donations in his personal Paypal account. He's already collected over $800. That should be more than enough to 1) pay for hosting for a couple months, 2) set up a non-profit organization, and maybe even 3) start the process of applying for 501(c)(3) status (which Dr. Sanger claimed to have started in October 2006). So we giving another $1300 to Milton Beychok quickly, wrapped in sufficient legalese that we know it goes towards the hosting. Then he and others can sleep easy, and focus on more important things. We are talking about chump change here. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:29 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: So we giving another $1300 to Milton Beychok quickly, wrapped in sufficient legalese that we know it goes towards the hosting. Then he and others can sleep easy, and focus on more important things. I'd say for the WMF to do so, without even knowing what happened to the other tens of thousands of dollars in donations, nor knowing what happened to the $1800 that they had days ago, nor knowing why the Tides Center dropped them, nor knowing why their hosting bill is so outrageous, would be grossly incompetent. We are talking about chump change here. Feel free to donate it yourself, then. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:05 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: These are all questions which would have to be answered before WMF should even consider getting involved. To cover itself legally it should have the agreement of Larry Sanger, the Tides Center, and at least a majority of the Management Counsel (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Management_Council). This would be WMF just providing ISP services for free, no more liable than Slicehost presently are. You know what would be kind of awesome? If there was a neutral hosting service -- by which I mean neutral hosting and technical support service -- for a whole variety of small free content projects that don't truly have the capacity to run independent technical organizations but are otherwise fairly stable. We've seen two such organizations brought up on Foundation-l just this year -- the fanhistory wiki and now Citizendium -- both of which need stable hosting, people who understand MediaWiki, and maybe even a bit of an organizational platform (like fundraising support) too. This platform could be a hosting service that was geared towards free and participatory projects, the upstart free content of the web. Such a hosting service would be a commons approach to this problem, with the costs and burden shared not just among the small projects but perhaps among the big ones too: I can see the big free culture organizations (us, Mozilla, Creative Commons, etc.) pitching in to such a thing in order to have a space to direct small projects to. This would be different from wiki hosting because perhaps all the projects wouldn't even be a wiki, as we understand them now; and there would be room for Citizendium's funky branch of MediaWiki and every other hack you can think of. And it would be neutral ground: not necessarily tied to the values of our Foundation or anyone else's. What do you think? Does such a thing exist already? Would it work? -- Phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On 12 November 2010 19:30, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Oh, well what's the point of that? Might as well just give them money, as the WMF would just be purchasing those ISP services from someone else anyway. The point of offering services rather than money is that we can control the costs. Geni mentioned offering a level of support equivalent to our smaller projects, which is most definitely *not* just providing ISP services. err beyond ISP services what do you think the WMF provided say the Galician language wikipedia with this year? -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: We did that with Uncyclopedia. Wikimedia hosted it until Wikia was formed. And we're talking Uncyclopedia here. It's satirical value had...value. Not quite as funny anymore. I would prefer CZ to use Wikia, which I don't think that they would ever do by the for-profit nature and relation to Jimbo. CZ is not quite the wiki culture that we have adopted and groomed for a Wikimedia project; it's Nupedia. So, realistically I don't quite see the meta community and the board adopting CZ. But it is an interesting concept, and it is not difficult for such a small project to find drastically cheaper hosting costs. There should be no problem with wikipedians having a perfectly unofficial whip-around get the citizendians over their rough patch -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?
Oh certainly, Jussi-Ville, I think it would be the noble thing to do. In theory. When it comes to practice, I'm not so sure. Uncyclopedia's model happened to work out and it got passed along. But that was six years ago. In 2010 (almost 2011), what is the impact aside from Doing the Right Thing®? I think we should do the right thing. I am not we. This thread seems responsive to the idea, so I'm just playing devil's advocate. On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: We did that with Uncyclopedia. Wikimedia hosted it until Wikia was formed. And we're talking Uncyclopedia here. It's satirical value had...value. Not quite as funny anymore. I would prefer CZ to use Wikia, which I don't think that they would ever do by the for-profit nature and relation to Jimbo. CZ is not quite the wiki culture that we have adopted and groomed for a Wikimedia project; it's Nupedia. So, realistically I don't quite see the meta community and the board adopting CZ. But it is an interesting concept, and it is not difficult for such a small project to find drastically cheaper hosting costs. There should be no problem with wikipedians having a perfectly unofficial whip-around get the citizendians over their rough patch -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
