Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On 11/12/2010 10:02 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:47 AM, MZMcBridez...@mzmcbride.com wrote: I also don't understand who would want a printed copy of a Wikipedia article. It seems antithetical to the point of the Internet and the creation of an online encyclopedia. The last time I used the Special:Book extension was not on Wikipedia at all, but on the Strategy wiki, where it is enabled. Before the last Board meeting, I used the tool to make a collection/pdf of the final strategy documents, which I then printed out and read on my lunch break, on the train, etc. -- places where I didn't have a computer and my aging smartphone just wouldn't cut it. The benefits of doing this, rather than just printing each page one-off, was that it was nicely formatted (and thus easier to read), included a de-duped list of contributors at the end so I could check who worked on the page without printing off the history as well, and was in a single pdf that I could both point other people to and also download to my computer, email to myself, etc. So about a minute of clicking saved me quite a bit of frustration and work, and made me quite a bit more efficient when it came to reviewing the strategy proposal. My only point here is that if you provide the tool people will put it to surprising and useful purposes. I think Erik clarified that the extension is something we can and intend to use regardless of PediaPress (as can any MediaWiki installation -- I intend to install it on my workplace wiki, when I get around to it) and I think Liam raises a good point that if there are other organizations doing what PediaPress does in the printing department we should consider adding them to the list as well (which we can certainly do, as it is a non-exclusive partnership). And yes, the Foundation's mission *is* to help disseminate knowledge, and specifically to encourage the dissemination of our project content, in any way that is useful to our readers and potential audience -- whether that's by DVD, wikireader, OLPC laptop, regular laptop, printed book, mobile phone... that's why we have a free license. -- phoebe Based upon my own experience, I tried to get into the printed Wikimedia game at about the same time as PediaPress first started to get involved, but was openly dismissed and in fact my efforts thwarted. I admit that the group I was working with at the time wasn't quite thinking of the direction that PediaPress went with their tool chain and there were some differences, but in the end it does explain some of the reception we got from the WMF board in terms of support for our little project (made up of mainly volunteers from Wikibooks at the time). There have been other groups who have tried to get into the role of printing materials from Wikimedia projects besides PediaPress, and I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the relationship is non-exclusive. At the very least, the process for getting accepted as an approved partner has been very murky at best and seems more like political back scratching. I'm willing to let bygones stay in the past and move forward from this point on, although it would be nice to know what it would take for support from the WMF in terms of putting together some other competing group that is printing and distributing Wikimedia materials. Yes, I'm fully aware that you can simply take the raw HTML pages from the projects and manipulate them into content to produce materials (I did that on multiple occasions) and that the Special:Book tool produces PDF files that can also be used for publication purposes as well by independent printers. As far as I've seen, however, the PediaPress deal was rather exclusive and I'm stating here for the record that other printing/publishing groups were not considered when the deal was being made nor have those other groups been given similar kind of coverage. -- Robert Horning Refinance Now 3.4% FIXED $160,000 Mortgage: $547/mo. No Hidden Fees. No SSN Req. Get 4 Quotes! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4cde50ac8ec31cd32est06vuc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On 11/12/2010 10:05 AM, Magnus Manske wrote: 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 The link to Google Maps is certainly not exclusive and includes links to other mapping services including government mapping agencies and the Open Street Map Project, whose database and toolchain is 100% open source. As a mater of fact, I was introduced to Open Street Map through Wikipedia and its link when I was trying to look up the geo coordinates on a couple of articles done with the Geotagging Wikiproject. Explicitly, I was looking for a mapping tool that I didn't have the copyright problems that Google Maps have and I wasn't interested in pushing fair-use for the side project I was working on. -- Robert Horning Refinance Now 3.4% FIXED $160,000 Mortgage: $547/mo. No Hidden Fees. No SSN Req. Get 4 Quotes! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4cde52e5ebd961ca75cst03duc ___ 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 5:55 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The problem I have with statements like these is that they feel disingenuous. The mission statement is as vague or as specific as the person arguing deems it to be. There are thousands of potential projects that Wikimedia could engage in that would fit perfectly within the current mission statement[1] and thousands more that would loosely fit in. It's mostly a matter of how many steps removed you choose to allow a particular venture to be. If I sell Wikimedia T-shirts, I'm building the Wikimedia brand, which leads to more donations during the fundraiser, which leads to more servers, which further enables the dissemination of educational content. Does that mean that selling T-shirts is within Wikimedia's mission? What is and isn't mission-relevant seems to be (perhaps intentionally) completely ambiguous. Ultimately, who decides whether a partnership with a company like PediaPress is mission-relevant? The Board of Trustees? The Executive Director? The Head of Business Development? And beyond who makes the decision, is there any guarantee that it will be a valid one? Given the vagueness of the mission statement, how much of a stretch is acceptable? Shockingly, making decisions like this does not necessarily involve reasoning, but judgement. Yes, the answers are not simple and logical — because you have to weigh the costs against the benefits. -- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/ ___ 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 1:16 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2010 19:30, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: 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? Really if you're asking that question I think we have completely different ideas as to what the term ISP services means. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Robert S. Horning robert_horn...@netzero.net wrote: On 11/12/2010 10:05 AM, Magnus Manske wrote: 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 The link to Google Maps is certainly not exclusive and includes links to other mapping services including government mapping agencies and the Open Street Map Project, whose database and toolchain is 100% open source. As a mater of fact, I was introduced to Open Street Map through Wikipedia and its link when I was trying to look up the geo coordinates on a couple of articles done with the Geotagging Wikiproject. And if you can find some other publishing entity (printing, DVDs, etc.) that could be used interchangeably for the PediaPress button, and this entity is denied a button next to the PediaPress one, /then/ a moral uproar might be justified. So far, I do not believe any such entity has stepped forward. Web-only services, like Wikipedia or OpenStreetMap, can be sustained cheaply enough to be free of charge for the user, which leads to many alternatives in the online maps category. Producing and shipping physical objects like books is still a business-only market, at least until everyone has a universal 3D printer sitting on his desk. For mass-printed books, there are lots of companies, which is why we have lots of them on out ISBN special page. However, there are relatively few print-on-demand businesses out there, and a total market of a few thousand unique books per year is apparently of little interest to all except one of them. If they want a share, let them have their own button; otherwise, be glad there is at least one of them, for there would likely be no PDF and OpenDocument (and soon OpenZIM) export function without their initiative. Cheers, Magnus ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Report from Day 1 of technical testing
Almost 22 hours ago, we turned on the 2010-11 contribution campaign for a weekend of functional testing prior to launch. We launched cleanly, I'm pleased to say - there were a few initial hiccups (around the size of the graphic used in the banner, and our ability to pull numbers out of the database for reporting) but they're resolved or being resolved nicely. The new cluster of servers for supporting the traffic is behaving nicely. In the last 22 hours, we've accepted about $510,000 directly to the Foundation. I don't yet have numbers from the chapters to report. The Foundation's donors alone represent nearly 19,000 individual donors. We launched with three graphic banners, and are pleased with the performance of all of them: we're putting together detailed numbers now and will, as always, report them publicly on the fundraising pages on meta at [[m:FR2010]]. On the whole, a successful start to the testing period, as we anticipate the actual Monday launch. Today we'll be testing banners requested by some chapters, as well as continuing with the Personal Appeal from Jimmy Wales. We're using today and tomorrow to refine and hone systems. I encourage you to check out the donation pages, particularly in non-English, non-US localities, and send your feedback (you can send it directly to me if you'd like) so that we can get them optimized. If you're in an area in which a chapter has control over the donation pages, I'll pass your feedback on to them, or you can write them directly. Thanks, everyone, for bearing with us as we get this thing up and going. I'm very pleased with the performance so far, but as we're still in technical tests, please be on the lookout for anything unusual and report it either by email or in the #wikimedia-fundraising IRC channel. Philippe ___ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. pbeaude...@wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://donate.wikimedia.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
In a message dated 11/13/2010 6:44:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, magnusman...@googlemail.com writes: And if you can find some other publishing entity (printing, DVDs, etc.) that could be used interchangeably for the PediaPress button, and this entity is denied a button next to the PediaPress one, /then/ a moral uproar might be justified. So far, I do not believe any such entity has stepped forward. Disengeneous (if that's how you spell it). Open the location to citizen modification and I guarentee you there will be another competitor shortly. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:18 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/13/2010 6:44:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, magnusman...@googlemail.com writes: And if you can find some other publishing entity (printing, DVDs, etc.) that could be used interchangeably for the PediaPress button, and this entity is denied a button next to the PediaPress one, /then/ a moral uproar might be justified. So far, I do not believe any such entity has stepped forward. Disengeneous (if that's how you spell it). You don't. And insults don't really make your POV more popular. Open the location to citizen modification and I guarentee you there will be another competitor shortly. I'm all for that. But, did anyone actually ask the Foundation to have his button included there (besides spammers et al.)? It's not like an email is hard to write... Magnus ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On 13 November 2010 17:53, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm all for that. But, did anyone actually ask the Foundation to have his button included there (besides spammers et al.)? It's not like an email is hard to write... Robert Horning has noted in this very thread: === Based upon my own experience, I tried to get into the printed Wikimedia game at about the same time as PediaPress first started to get involved, but was openly dismissed and in fact my efforts thwarted. I admit that the group I was working with at the time wasn't quite thinking of the direction that PediaPress went with their tool chain and there were some differences, but in the end it does explain some of the reception we got from the WMF board in terms of support for our little project (made up of mainly volunteers from Wikibooks at the time). There have been other groups who have tried to get into the role of printing materials from Wikimedia projects besides PediaPress, and I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the relationship is non-exclusive. At the very least, the process for getting accepted as an approved partner has been very murky at best and seems more like political back scratching. === http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062385.html I leave the question of disingenuity to the reader. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] New projects
Our family has got new projects: * Wikipedia in Gagauz: http://gag.wikipedia.org/ * Wikisource in Venetian: http://vec.wikisource.org * Wikisource in Breton: http://br.wikisource.org/ * Wikibooks in Limburgish: http://li.wikibooks.org/ * Wikinews in Esperanto: http://eo.wikinews.org/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New projects
Fantastic. :-) Semantic issue: these aren't new projects, they're new language versions of existing projects. We haven't had a new project since 2007. Mike On 13 Nov 2010, at 18:51, Milos Rancic wrote: Our family has got new projects: * Wikipedia in Gagauz: http://gag.wikipedia.org/ * Wikisource in Venetian: http://vec.wikisource.org * Wikisource in Breton: http://br.wikisource.org/ * Wikibooks in Limburgish: http://li.wikibooks.org/ * Wikinews in Esperanto: http://eo.wikinews.org/ ___ 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] New projects
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 19:56, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote: Fantastic. :-) Semantic issue: these aren't new projects, they're new language versions of existing projects. We haven't had a new project since 2007. Hm. In my perception, term project has two meanings: separate project, language edition and project type. If you find one word term for the first meaning, I would be glad to adopt it :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 6:16 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/13/2010 9:53:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, magnusman...@googlemail.com writes: I'm all for that. But, did anyone actually ask the Foundation to have his button included there (besides spammers et al.)? It's not like an email is hard to write... Why should *this* be a Foundation issue in your mind, when adding a source to Special Books is not. To me it's an identical situation. How is it different to you It's not, in principle, and you just quoted me with I'm all for that (replying to your citizen modification), so you know it's not different to me. I just don't see a reason for drama that it's not available right now. I can see three reasons why it is different /in practice/ right now: 1. Given the limited of number services (one, plus Robert's which I missed in the thread, if it still exists), it probably seemed pointless 2. Any service would have to develop the appropriate interface to MediaWiki first, and also integrate with Wikimedia servers, as far as I can tell; therefore, users adding buttons would be non-functional without Foundation's active help anyway 3. PediaPress might have bought a head start with the extension. This is pure speculation on my part, though. Looking at the implementation of the button, it actually has a partner field. So, more partners are in the technical design. This would lead me to conclude that the thing missing to have more partners for book printing is ... partners. Unless it's a Foundation-PediaPress conspiracy, and the technical implementation is just a clever guise. Cue the Morley's smoker... Magnus ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
Hello Sarah, I searched a little on meta and the oldest thing I found related to this is from the Foundation Report of January 2008 [1]. So I cannot tell you how the contract came into being. As you know, the Foundation moved in the spring of 2008 from Florida to San Francisco and rebuilt itself afterwards. Before the move the organisational maturity is still quite weak. I am sure that today such contract would be handled in other ways and the board would surely be informed. The reason why I changed your example is exactly because I wanted to avoid the topic of paid edit. As you know, this topic is very controversial inside of the community. We just had a quite long thread about this running through this list. To include that topic into this discussion makes it only even more difficult. I recognize what MZMcBride pointed out, that my modification is not comparable with your original example and is also not comparable to the PediaPress case. I simply have no good example at the hand. May I try with another example: One of our problem was always translation. Our movement is supposed to be a global movement, but in a lot of cases our working language is English. A lot of very important discussions here, on meta, in commons, are in English. Although we try very hard to work more multilingual, but in alot of cases if someone don't know English, he may not even able to know that a topic is just discussed somewhere, that may have inpact on his work on our projects. So, let's say the Virgin Ventures has a genious service that can help us to overcome this problem. It has a magic button translate this page or this thread, and if I hit it, Vergin Ventures can provide me, with automatically or manually performed services, after a reasonable time, a comprehensible translation of the discussions, so that everyone can take part on our discussion. I really don't see any reason why the Foundation should not handle out a contract with Vergin Ventures so that we take get this service and at the same time Vergin Ventures can get a share as a business model. I know that also this example is not without flaw, as comparisons always are. What I want to say is, if a company can provide us a service that we really desperately need and we cannot get elsewhere, and it shares the same value as we are, I think it is a correct decision to take that service. I am sure this answer is maybe not satisfactory, but I hope it can explain a little what my personal opinion is. Greetings Ting [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_January_2008 On 13.11.2010 08:57, wrote SlimVirgin: On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 00:53, Ting Chenwing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: Hello Sarah, I would put it somehow differently. If Virgin Ventures has a tool with which a newbie (or also an oldbie) can in a very intuitive way construct a well formatted article from the scrap, so something like that magic editor we had talked about for long time and never realized until now, and it is open source, I would certainly consider a button in the toolbox like Use the wizard to start an article. On 12.11.2010 07:44, wrote SlimVirgin: If I were to set up Virgin Ventures to write high-quality, policy-compliant articles for companies and people that needed them -- benefiting the subjects, the readers, and Wikipedia -- might I be given a button in the toolbox too? Red link? Click here for the Virgin! Hello Ting, The concern is this: the argument is that because the people behind [[PediaPress]] in Germany -- who I assume were Wikipedians -- put their time into creating the create book software, they should be allowed a return on their investment, unlike Wikipedia's writers who are expected to donate their skills for free. Therefore, the Foundation gave them access to some of cyberspace's most expensive real estate in the sidebar, and the company is allowed to keep 90 percent of the profit by printing articles in book form. And I believe it's not actually PediaPress doing the printing. They have a contract with yet another company for that -- [[Lightning Source]] -- a print-on-demand subsidiary of Ingram Industries Inc. http://mickrooney.blogspot.com/2010/06/lsi-expandpartnership-with-pediapress.html PediaPress is owned by Brainbot Technologies, which says on its website that it aims to exploit Wikipedia content commercially, and it was to this end that PediaPress was set up. http://brainbot.com/services/wikis/ Google translate -- http://translate.google.com/#de|en| It raises lots of questions, but two big ones: 1. How was PediaPress/Brainbot chosen to do this, out of all the companies in the world that would have paid the Foundation for access to a create book function in the sidebar? and 2. It presupposes that technical know-how can be monetized, but editorial input on Wikipedia -- the material Brainbot/PediaPress wants to sell -- should be done without payment. Wikipedians who
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On 11/13/2010 11:08 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: What's the URL for Robert's service? I would love to try it out. If the service isn't mature yet, is there a code repository somewhere? Ryan Kaldari Much of what I was trying to get started was covered on this very mailing list. If you go into the archives and look up Wikijunior to see some of the efforts that were made, including some initial publications that were made through Lulu (that were also removed from Lulu at the request of the WMF). The organizing efforts were being done on Wikibooks as much as could be done, and that was pretty much where it ended too. The problem was that PediaPress offered money, which we didn't. There isn't really a name to the group as it was only loosely organized, but there were several volunteers working with me at the time we were trying to put things together. I also paid out of my own pocket for a couple of trial runs to see how the system could work, and tried to make a business case for the effort. I was also looking for some kind of partnership and noting that handing money was quickly going to be a major issue. It was also something that the WMF did not want to get directly involved with for reasons that I understand completely too. Much of the motivation for the whole effort I was involved with centered on the original promise that Wikijunior was going to be set up for making printed versions of the Children's books created by that project. Apparently some money was given to the WMF by some donor with some guidelines on how the project was to be set up. To the best of my knowledge that money has never been fully accounted for other than being swallowed up by the operations of the server farm and the general operations budget of the WMF. As an administrator on Wikibooks at the time, I felt personally responsible for maintaining the Wikijunior community and to follow through with the promises that were made in terms of getting those printed versions of Wikijunior books out to the public. It never happened, however. When the PediaPress deal was announced, it sort of sucked whatever wind was left in the effort out, and some other needs in my own life came up that also took precedence. I keep holding out hope that eventually things are going to change, and I wouldn't mind trying to put together some other similar effort again to restart the momentum that was lost years ago. Unfortunately most times I try to do that it falls flat on its face with nobody else interested in helping out or even considering the idea. I was hoping to have a more volunteer effort like what is being done with the wiki projects or perhaps more like Distributed Proofreading that would help prepare and publish the books. I still think something like that is needed, but at the moment there is no home and the only URL I can give is my e-mail address at the moment. There have been some semi-recent changes in the publishing industry that I think makes a volunteer effort work out much better where everything that is going on including how the funds are raised and spent being more out in the open can happen. My problem is merely getting people together that are interested in something like that at the moment or even finding a forum to present the idea. I have hoped that Foundation-l would be that forum, but apparently it isn't. -- Robert Horning Refinance Now 3.4% FIXED $160,000 Mortgage: $547/mo. No Hidden Fees. No SSN Req. Get 4 Quotes! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4cdef42d13dde1d3a9dst04duc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New projects
On 11/13/2010 12:06 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 19:56, Michael Peelem...@mikepeel.net wrote: Fantastic. :-) Semantic issue: these aren't new projects, they're new language versions of existing projects. We haven't had a new project since 2007. Hm. In my perception, term project has two meanings: separate project, language edition and project type. If you find one word term for the first meaning, I would be glad to adopt it :) How about Wikimedia projects in new languages? -- Robert Horning Go Back to School Grant Funding May Be Available to Those Who Qualify http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4cdef5798881d9723st04vuc ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New projects
meanwhile in the foundation mailing list... 2010/11/13 Robert S. Horning robert_horn...@netzero.net On 11/13/2010 12:06 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 19:56, Michael Peelem...@mikepeel.net wrote: Fantastic. :-) Semantic issue: these aren't new projects, they're new language versions of existing projects. We haven't had a new project since 2007. Hm. In my perception, term project has two meanings: separate project, language edition and project type. If you find one word term for the first meaning, I would be glad to adopt it :) How about Wikimedia projects in new languages? -- Robert Horning Go Back to School Grant Funding May Be Available to Those Who Qualify http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4cdef5798881d9723st04vuc ___ 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] PediaPress
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 13:59, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: I know that also this example is not without flaw, as comparisons always are. What I want to say is, if a company can provide us a service that we really desperately need and we cannot get elsewhere, and it shares the same value as we are, I think it is a correct decision to take that service. I am sure this answer is maybe not satisfactory, but I hope it can explain a little what my personal opinion is. I understand exactly what you're saying, Ting, and I appreciate your thoughtful response. I suppose my reaction is an emotional one, but I'd argue no less valid for that. It's that much of the content of Wikipedia is written and administered by a surprisingly small number of people. We do it for nothing because we believe in the concept of free (in all senses) information. But now to the left of my vision, with every edit I make, there is a create book button, where a private company is quite openly making money from our work. That feels discouraging. Sarah ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
Let me ask this question. Suppose the Wikimedia Foundation were to buy PediaPress from Brainbot, including whatever intellectual property is associated with its service such as the LaTeX export. If Wikimedia did this and brought the service in-house, assuming the LaTeX export is released as open source, it would probably continue to contract with Lightning Source or some other company to do the actual printing (our competencies are much more on computer and web technology than print publication). Assuming that all of this was possible - and I have no idea what would be a reasonable price for PediaPress, whether Brainbot would sell, or whether that would be an appropriate use of funds in the context of our mission and strategy - would people be okay with the current placement of the service, including continuing to charge people who order printed books? --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 15:10, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: Let me ask this question. Suppose the Wikimedia Foundation were to buy PediaPress from Brainbot, including whatever intellectual property is associated with its service such as the LaTeX export. If Wikimedia did this and brought the service in-house, assuming the LaTeX export is released as open source, it would probably continue to contract with Lightning Source or some other company to do the actual printing (our competencies are much more on computer and web technology than print publication). Assuming that all of this was possible - and I have no idea what would be a reasonable price for PediaPress, whether Brainbot would sell, or whether that would be an appropriate use of funds in the context of our mission and strategy - would people be okay with the current placement of the service, including continuing to charge people who order printed books? If PediaPress's software is open-source the Foundation surely wouldn't need to buy it. This is what I'm finding confusing, and that's partly because of my lack of technical knowledge. But as I see it Wikimedia has developers, paid and unpaid, lots of people who are able to develop this kind of thing. So it would have made sense to ask some volunteers to develop it. Asking a private company to do these things, then giving them access to the sidebar in exchange for their input, is the same as asking a bunch of editors to set up a company and start writing articles for pay, then giving them sidebar buttons because they joyously agree. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New projects
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: Our family has got new projects: * Wikipedia in Gagauz: http://gag.wikipedia.org/ * Wikisource in Venetian: http://vec.wikisource.org * Wikisource in Breton: http://br.wikisource.org/ * Wikibooks in Limburgish: http://li.wikibooks.org/ * Wikinews in Esperanto: http://eo.wikinews.org/ This is lovely news, and ... I am stunned to see Wikisource Breton on the list. Their request was only started in September 2010, and is already done!? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikisource_Breton Congrats to the Bretons! If only the 250 million Hindi speakers were able to get their translations done.. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikisource_Hindi :-) -- John Vandenberg ___ 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 On 13/11/2010 16:59, Ting Chen wrote: I searched a little on meta and the oldest thing I found related to this is from the Foundation Report of January 2008 [1]. So I cannot tell you how the contract came into being. As you know, the Foundation moved in the spring of 2008 from Florida to San Francisco and rebuilt itself afterwards. Before the move the organisational maturity is still quite weak. I am sure that today such contract would be handled in other ways and the board would surely be informed. Maybe a scan of the contract would help clear things? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3wkNAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LCukIAMlvvd0a44z/4w29cyGOaIBi BZUQWy4joGdQ49WnV/EhMuWzJRoRfk/ereSkwxVvq6xYpiq4ZfbLibQhqTwyLLJ0 S+URLUkMcBH15QNojY61q7cGirhO3fop9JMhq1As8a8u+pvlMHjkxLKiwaHJfJb8 UDPxxLtRYWo6tUSKo19EFX9stKVa0ReHX+UkzXXHWOPfjKuarIUarS3uQngvjI0y kAkeO8H4FfEdQrreFL4q1J5DkRHpUf3kuOCwt11Xl+sQjM4yQS0Ym0s7HPpWUG51 LESDs/aQ+mlV+l0MhiyWjPqqIXxqMKOfynjIA0857sio42K3Pl+kmSFkqiPWbfk= =w1Sc -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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 On 13/11/2010 17:25, Robert S. Horning wrote: Much of what I was trying to get started was covered on this very mailing list. If you go into the archives and look up Wikijunior to see some of the efforts that were made, including some initial publications that were made through Lulu (that were also removed from Lulu at the request of the WMF). The organizing efforts were being done on Wikibooks as much as could be done, and that was pretty much where it ended too. Why was Lulu removed? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3wnWAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LMwQIAIQv4dWUsTzCZ5smSmC/ohpa aWUYSbTiKc8RUiNDy+BJXAAcTD2sRLs4VINJ2c3aSZPgttIoyX61pR/j8U5Zpdjw +h12zC7g9XezF2l8Ab4Fgnohx8drZxQamV0o1XPqliT5OF/cT1333h4JCqDlkVey Z8PCHfdDg96hQ1E+3AmrbvyX967jRYK6slQZa5LCwln+By7GSPitnIUARbInl1pq 6q7IfeRXBEAmS/yMUZ3VFm3OXMSdKeMGpsxPaS4MW4YsXF0d3Ddym0AzQjvyrFMk t8Edr5BBqZTfPpxPqOSLfjmhsNzo+DfLL+1nbIXgeeVX7m7F0A5HmZjoTWbLlpE= =otK7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New projects
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: Our family has got new projects: snip * Wikinews in Esperanto: http://eo.wikinews.org/ This project is a joke, are there really people who are going to read news in Esperanto? user:alnokta ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New projects
Me points people towards: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/newprojects (archives: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/newprojects/). -Peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] New projects
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 00:03, Mohamed Magdy mohamed@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: Our family has got new projects: snip * Wikinews in Esperanto: http://eo.wikinews.org/ This project is a joke, are there really people who are going to read news in Esperanto? It is not a joke any more than the other Wikinews projects. There are dozens of websites and printed news magazines in Esperanto, so people are reading them. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Esperanto_publications (that category is far from being comprehensive). Besides, the Language Committee checked that this project is actually active in the Incubator before approving it, so there certainly are people who are writing news in Esperanto for that project. -- אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי · Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:51 PM, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 13:59, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: I know that also this example is not without flaw, as comparisons always are. What I want to say is, if a company can provide us a service that we really desperately need and we cannot get elsewhere, and it shares the same value as we are, I think it is a correct decision to take that service. I am sure this answer is maybe not satisfactory, but I hope it can explain a little what my personal opinion is. I understand exactly what you're saying, Ting, and I appreciate your thoughtful response. I suppose my reaction is an emotional one, but I'd argue no less valid for that. It's that much of the content of Wikipedia is written and administered by a surprisingly small number of people. We do it for nothing because we believe in the concept of free (in all senses) information. But now to the left of my vision, with every edit I make, there is a create book button, where a private company is quite openly making money from our work. That feels discouraging. Every edit you make is also mirrored by answers.com, which quite openly makes money off of our work as well. This particular line of reasoning has not historically served as a discouragement to most of our editor base. The crux of the question seems to me to rather be who and how we directly partner with, and what services do we offer to readers (and contributors) by such partners through the site itself. In the case of PediaPress, it's fairly low-key; what you see in the sidebar is actually a link to the book creator tool, which is extension code to make a collection of pages that can then be generated as a pdf. It is only after you click through and do this that you are offered a link to Get a printed book from our print-on-demand partner and a link to PediaPress appears. People are quite free to create a pdf collection and never send it to PediaPress, which wouldn't generate a dime for them, and my instinct is that this accounts for the majority of the tool's use. I don't mean to be dismissive, though; asking about partnerships is a totally valid question, and we should at the very least keep any such partnerships open so that we can always consider if there are other and better services, extensions, etc. available to offer in addition to or in place of existing ones. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On 11/13/10 12:25 PM, Robert S. Horning wrote: Much of what I was trying to get started was covered on this very mailing list. If you go into the archives and look up Wikijunior to see some of the efforts that were made, including some initial publications that were made through Lulu (that were also removed from Lulu at the request of the WMF). The organizing efforts were being done on Wikibooks as much as could be done, and that was pretty much where it ended too. The problem was that PediaPress offered money, which we didn't. So you're saying that the Foundation should have partnered with a completely proprietary service (Lulu), that wasn't interested in donating any software or income back to the Foundation? That doesn't sound like a very appealing partnership, nor can I imagine the community supporting such a decision (especially considering how skeptical they've been of the PediaPress partnership). Ryan Kaldari ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote: Let me ask this question. Suppose the Wikimedia Foundation were to buy PediaPress from Brainbot, including whatever intellectual property is associated with its service such as the LaTeX export. If Wikimedia did this and brought the service in-house, assuming the LaTeX export is released as open source, it would probably continue to contract with Lightning Source or some other company to do the actual printing (our competencies are much more on computer and web technology than print publication). Assuming that all of this was possible - and I have no idea what would be a reasonable price for PediaPress, whether Brainbot would sell, or whether that would be an appropriate use of funds in the context of our mission and strategy - would people be okay with the current placement of the service, including continuing to charge people who order printed books? Well, you first need to check if it would be/is generating enough revenue that justifies the investment. and see the usage of the collection extension and how many books they already printed etc. I don't know what is wrong with charging money to print the books, if someone needs a hardcopy of an article collection, then WMF should be the one providing it, if feasible. user:alnokta ___ 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 On 13/11/2010 18:10, Michael Snow wrote: Let me ask this question. Suppose the Wikimedia Foundation were to buy PediaPress from Brainbot, including whatever intellectual property is associated with its service such as the LaTeX export. If Wikimedia did this and brought the service in-house, assuming the LaTeX export is released as open source, it would probably continue to contract with Lightning Source or some other company to do the actual printing (our competencies are much more on computer and web technology than print publication). Assuming that all of this was possible - and I have no idea what would be a reasonable price for PediaPress, whether Brainbot would sell, or whether that would be an appropriate use of funds in the context of our mission and strategy - would people be okay with the current placement of the service, including continuing to charge people who order printed books? Maybe I'm not entitled to give my opinion, but here's my vision of what could be a correct behavior towards the knowledge that we are spreading: it's as free as we can make it, because we want everyone to have access to it, and nobody should have a special power nor ownership on it. So making books and selling them at the price of the cost is okay, the extreme limit: the sustainable limit. Selling them with profit is not. Spreading through healthy, citizen, public or free NGO or associations is promising. Dealing with for-profit, governmental, financial or private organisms or corporations is worsening. Etc. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3xawAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L3AgIAMeVvfvmrZDO7ZfvCdQL8TdO 4ZgCv1m1KV3cn+mhRVrOqRs9hbS/WGmCVWdReM+bnq0tWDIvgNr7PJ/p2X9SgpMQ yTa7nNe6yZu6/1vvCy/f52Fy2N9v4TUaQhwmkH7rX0tsJR+PUFhScvCpJh0uoMIK YIXmiMaP6Mx8yqGVMLQCye1qria35quZyqaA7zfG9tU/YQhBk9I06ISo1A1UHa69 TAXDBpm8RP/OnY8ylW0FAwaiMOKH9wdczTGzZxIuzDwq+m3ZqLrj5DlUtwkPwNQE Pun3zaFB/B0JLRyJ40xi688wsW8giFp7ZLVZ/M9XRchArw72bZ8T0ygRIHUF0GU= =Pb7D -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
It's pretty obvious that there are some back-justifications being made for a blatantly imperfect decision. There are both real strengths and benefits to the decision (making print copies easily accessible) as well as deep flaws (promoting an exclusive relationship with a for-profit company). It would probably be best if the PediaPress relationship were handled like Wikipedia's other link-to-outside-entities, such as Special:BookSources. On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 13/11/2010 17:51, SlimVirgin wrote: I understand exactly what you're saying, Ting, and I appreciate your thoughtful response. I suppose my reaction is an emotional one, but I'd argue no less valid for that. It's that much of the content of Wikipedia is written and administered by a surprisingly small number of people. We do it for nothing because we believe in the concept of free (in all senses) information. But now to the left of my vision, with every edit I make, there is a create book button, where a private company is quite openly making money from our work. That feels discouraging. Indeed. There seems to be a significant divergence in the interpretation of the Wikipedia mission between the Foundation and the community. Added to lots of other hints, it makes me wonder how much the WMF is representative of the general community. Is this gap real? Am I badly informed? In any way, shouldn't the WMF be subordinate to the community's will? I have the current understanding that this is not at all the case. Could someone take a little of his or her time to explains to me the general idea of what the relationship between the WMF and the community should be? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3xACAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LSIAIAL+Hzv+dWSNaSymxDbyD9VbG Rsl8js50KC161+hEEKrtlqgahawnqwb8ZH79TZ+RLxVn4+o1uxIlgr8EN/h0CtqD 3ViO7+hQX0a26KNph/2kxV6VFRfPr93VguEAsQRGXqIr6QNuwwrgEvyCdlz21FHP X4vUyVOWJkvCXxJNJ50J3HaAGy1hy2RYckWvHvWrSv4Ppq6QdPUNhAJgzDIqSpyX mqdnLxsrOA6LzSetSt8B0EJ05c+AcZbaesvGhmqLHIetBlfQdsOyOqbxH8vEK52i yBsG1T2EbY4erlNQ7OAWEPFc9suLuAACtPjBZY1LFIrFW1Wxt6rl6EBLeLrAHw8= =b7Ep -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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] PediaPress
In a message dated 11/13/2010 11:08:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, magnusman...@googlemail.com writes: 1. Given the limited of number services (one, plus Robert's which I missed in the thread, if it still exists), it probably seemed pointless 2. Any service would have to develop the appropriate interface to MediaWiki first, and also integrate with Wikimedia servers, as far as I can tell; therefore, users adding buttons would be non-functional without Foundation's active help anyway 3. PediaPress might have bought a head start with the extension. This is pure speculation on my part, though. 1) Assumption. We do not know how many services there might be. Assuming there is only one, because one one has been allowed is beating a man with his own staff. 2) This is not true. Clicking Make a book out of this page, and hold on I'm going to add some more pages to this book has nothing to do with integration. I can build a list of the pages you choose, right now, with a Php script and without any foundation approval. My button interface might not be pretty of course, but it would work. 3) Under what RFP ? How was it chosen, how was it vetted, why is the process to gain this approval now closed to any rival? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
Ryan Kaldari wrote: On 11/13/10 12:25 PM, Robert S. Horning wrote: Much of what I was trying to get started was covered on this very mailing list. If you go into the archives and look up Wikijunior to see some of the efforts that were made, including some initial publications that were made through Lulu (that were also removed from Lulu at the request of the WMF). The organizing efforts were being done on Wikibooks as much as could be done, and that was pretty much where it ended too. The problem was that PediaPress offered money, which we didn't. So you're saying that the Foundation should have partnered with a completely proprietary service (Lulu), that wasn't interested in donating any software or income back to the Foundation? That doesn't sound like a very appealing partnership, nor can I imagine the community supporting such a decision (especially considering how skeptical they've been of the PediaPress partnership). At the core of this thread are two questions, in my view: 1. What are the requirements for a partnership with Wikimedia? You've mentioned a few possible criteria (giving a percentage to Wikimedia, using open source software, etc.). Is there an actual guideline about this kind of thing? If not, should there be? 2. Who decides on partnerships? The Executive Director? The Board? The Head of Business Development? Again, this might be covered by some sort of guide. For all I know, there's already something on wikimediafoundation.org about this. I'm just asking questions. :-) MZMcBride ___ 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 On 13/11/2010 19:14, phoebe ayers wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 12:51 PM, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 13:59, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: I know that also this example is not without flaw, as comparisons always are. What I want to say is, if a company can provide us a service that we really desperately need and we cannot get elsewhere, and it shares the same value as we are, I think it is a correct decision to take that service. I am sure this answer is maybe not satisfactory, but I hope it can explain a little what my personal opinion is. I understand exactly what you're saying, Ting, and I appreciate your thoughtful response. I suppose my reaction is an emotional one, but I'd argue no less valid for that. It's that much of the content of Wikipedia is written and administered by a surprisingly small number of people. We do it for nothing because we believe in the concept of free (in all senses) information. But now to the left of my vision, with every edit I make, there is a create book button, where a private company is quite openly making money from our work. That feels discouraging. Every edit you make is also mirrored by answers.com, which quite openly makes money off of our work as well. This particular line of reasoning has not historically served as a discouragement to most of our editor base. I didn't know that. How can a site be only a motor of search of our pages and at the same time charge for it? Aren't we already doing the same? We can even do it better since we're at the source of this service. With google ranking us high, we are an answer.com too, naturally. We don't need a professional counterpart, they have no plus-value to add to us that we can't add ourselves. Knowledge is not for elitists, knowledge is for everybody, and thus, as free of charges as possible. The crux of the question seems to me to rather be who and how we directly partner with, and what services do we offer to readers (and contributors) by such partners through the site itself. In the case of PediaPress, it's fairly low-key; what you see in the sidebar is actually a link to the book creator tool, which is extension code to make a collection of pages that can then be generated as a pdf. It is only after you click through and do this that you are offered a link to Get a printed book from our print-on-demand partner and a link to PediaPress appears. You mean Get a printed book from our print-on-demand partnerS and several links of several partners, among them PediaPress in alphabetical order to be exact, I presume. All of those partners should be non-profit, of course. People are quite free to create a pdf collection and never send it to PediaPress, which wouldn't generate a dime for them, and my instinct is that this accounts for the majority of the tool's use. Then the service would be pdf creator, not book creator, right? I don't mean to be dismissive, though; asking about partnerships is a totally valid question, and we should at the very least keep any such partnerships open so that we can always consider if there are other and better services, extensions, etc. available to offer in addition to or in place of existing ones. Yes. And discussing about their moral interest could our first discussion, actually. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3x8aAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L9o0H/0xdsOlkQ+4uB/01zryFRiEw afjAAhGq++oD8Gn0IlktxHyycrhUoXCnIfVTdxyhhTbC0IDRx/0yhEap8e8lyXya MAbITzz9xQ1WHHbYBJ6ahGZlJeQwtj4f1YkNGENgzmfgvQlUzrvnaHqJad9s75Uv Gz153fv2fswtSivVBUAFIXcxxqm4zApQ2GroR6dAnr28SqSfOfWd8mnNDfeqM78U KSu+ztw4Ef9Hqn0jOOId8gr75lcjBcIQ6qc5ayZBC4GBQ63dRkVHA3wUNylqesp1 sCd3tSsNZDe7vC0CT0I1mdT7Zf2bYbRhPGW6JBpWNUa9S1tRyFusb8GmNDTquDg= =LvT7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:04 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/13/2010 11:08:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, magnusman...@googlemail.com writes: 1. Given the limited of number services (one, plus Robert's which I missed in the thread, if it still exists), it probably seemed pointless 2. Any service would have to develop the appropriate interface to MediaWiki first, and also integrate with Wikimedia servers, as far as I can tell; therefore, users adding buttons would be non-functional without Foundation's active help anyway 3. PediaPress might have bought a head start with the extension. This is pure speculation on my part, though. 1) Assumption. We do not know how many services there might be. Assuming there is only one, because one one has been allowed is beating a man with his own staff. Note that I wrote seemed, not seems. I trying to list possible reasons why this facility was created the way it was. That is different to what it should develop into now. 2) This is not true. Clicking Make a book out of this page, and hold on I'm going to add some more pages to this book has nothing to do with integration. I can build a list of the pages you choose, right now, with a Php script and without any foundation approval. My button interface might not be pretty of course, but it would work. Again, please read carefully. I am not talking about the book setup, but about the actual preview/order process. You will note that the PediaPress button goes to [[Special:Books]], which then redirects to PediaPress. This, at the moment, requires integration. I does not have to, but currently it does. 3) Under what RFP ? How was it chosen, how was it vetted, why is the process to gain this approval now closed to any rival? Yet again, with the reading. You did see the words pure speculation? I'm getting tired of having to nitpick this discussion. How about something practical? It should be feasible to conjure up some JavaScript to add a new button pointing to another service, though I suspect some internal magic happens before the PediaPress redirect, handing the book structure data over. So, back to the basic question: Which service would be able to take a structured page list and spew out a book? Magnus ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report from Day 1 of technical testing
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: In the last 22 hours, we've accepted about $510,000 directly to the Foundation. I don't yet have numbers from the chapters to report. The Foundation's donors alone represent nearly 19,000 individual donors. My congratulations to Philippe, the rest of the community team at the Foundation, and all of the volunteers who have helped get the fundraiser to this stage. For us to earn $516,882 on the very first full day of the fundraiser (a pre-launch day no less) is nothing short of outstanding; and, if my suspicions are correct, it's not going to be the biggest day of the fundraiser, either. So congratulations, and keep up the good work! I and many others will be watching and hoping that you can make our launch day a Million Dollar Monday. -- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/ ___ 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 11/13/10, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Ourproject.org does something like this, but I think that something evolved with the help of the big free culture organizations and building on this model, could turn into even a much greater resource. http://ourproject.org/ Thanks, Pharos ___ 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] Open and transparency or not
Let me jump in since I was the one who moved it. At the end of the 2009 Fundraiser we were getting hit by a significant amount of fraudulent transactions. It got so bad that the WMF had to dedicate full time staff members to respond to the massive amount of email and phone calls we were getting from confused card holders. As a result we had to turn off the gateway post fundraiser. Many months later in preparation for the 2010 Fundraiser we started a fraud prevention project since allowing credit card donations provided us significant boost to the annual fundraiser. We publicly posted about it at http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/09/wmf-engineering and came up with a solution that removed almost all of the fraud we were seeing. One of the things that was mentioned to us as we were working on the project was to not give fraudsters the exact recipe of how the system worked. Since we knew that we'd be checking our code into the production svn depots we chose to move the project page to somewhere that was not available to fraudsters. This wasn't done to prevent anyone from participating as we posted on the blog in order to keep everyone updated. As a community that strives on assuming good faith lets focus our efforts on thinking that everyone who genuinely participates at any level of the Wikimedia movement does so because they are trying to help. I think Platonides comment at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/70919#c9972 provides us with the most amount of guidance. He pointed out that the extension is actually able to run on newer python versions and that there were no immediate impediments to its usage. As everyone knows, putting on the annual fundraiser is an enormous amount of work. I'm ridiculously proud of what awjrichards, kaldari, and the tons of community members have been able to pull off in the short amount of time that we've had. That key piece info from Platonides came after our priorities had shifted and we haven't had any breather since. As our priorities shift relative to what the fundraiser requires we'll be working actively to fix this but as a community we shouldn't think of this as a bottleneck. --tomasz On Nov 13, 2010, at 6:17 PM, a b wrote: Interesting. users/developers comment on the inclusion of reCATCHPA within the fund-raising[1] code since other projects have been they can't utilize its services then ~two weeks later (which isn't all that long in wmf time) its project documentation is moved off wiki (mw wiki) into the office[2] wiki which is private to WMF staff members only I will let everybody think about that. [1]. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/70919 [2]. http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Payment_Fraud_Preventionaction=historysubmitdiff=349338oldid=346607 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com If PediaPress's software is open-source the Foundation surely wouldn't need to buy it. This is what I'm finding confusing, and that's partly because of my lack of technical knowledge. But as I see it Wikimedia has developers, paid and unpaid, lots of people who are able to develop this kind of thing. So it would have made sense to ask some volunteers to develop it. Asking a private company to do these things, then giving them access to the sidebar in exchange for their input, is the same as asking a bunch of editors to set up a company and start writing articles for pay, then giving them sidebar buttons because they joyously agree. Just for the sake of transparency -- 1. Does anyone on the board, or the board of Wikimedia Germany, have a remunerated directorship or a consultancy job with PediaPress, or receive any other perks from this or any other similar partnerships? 2. What is PediaPress's present turnover, and thus, what is the income for the Foundation, in dollars? 3. Given that the foundation is currently asking for donations, wouldn't it make more sense for the Foundation to do the printing and generate the income themselves, to reduce the amount of donations it requires from the public? Or is PediaPress at present a loss-making business? I guess it's always been inevitable that someone would be making money from Wikipedians' work, eventually. However, a non-profit Foundation that asks for donations from the public should maximise the revenue it can generate itself from its products to cover its costs. 10% (did I get that right?) does not seem much. It also seems to me that it would be more consistent with the ideals of the project if most of the money made should go to support a non-profit cause. Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
