Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:26 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/28/2010 9:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, russnel...@gmail.com writes: Yes I agree, the policy is extremely vague. We may be struck by lightning, we may be abducted by aliens, we may be sentient beings. May doesn't say anything. Why have a policy which uses may? So you can do anything at all and say well we did say we MAY... That's not a policy, it's a non-policy. The policy, by using the word may states the maximum amount of what we may do. It does on the one hand warn users of what *might* be done, on the other hand ensures them about what might definitely *not* be done. I know quite a lot about operational requirements, and I know that policies should state clearly what IS being done, not what may be done. It's quite practical to be more explicit. For example, the policy could state clearly what exactly is being done. That would be more explicit. Yes, that would be more explicit. It would also mean that every minute change of procedure would entail a policy change. Policies are not meant to be descriptions of what we do and how we do it, they are meant to be the rules that we put on ourselves about what we do and what we do not do. There are things that we promise to do and there are things that we promise not to do. But there are also things that we want to keep a leeway of doing, not doing or doing in a different way without needing a formal board resolution each time something changes. I know what Aude stated. I asked for a citation to the actual policy of the WMF on that point. But apparently there isn't any. You mean it's not practical or productive to keep users informed of what information is being stored on them. Why bother with a clear privacy policy, why not simply ignore anyone who pushes for one? And then claim you're not Very clever. W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
Hi! Each web server, of which the WMF has a few, collects details on the behaviour of IPs, in logs. Those logs can be and probably have been requested by certain government officials, most likely for the purpose of tracking down who is behind a certain Bad posting to a BLP. We log edits, not page views. These are not 'web server' logs, these are mediawiki logs. Domas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
Hi! There aren't any raw logs? Closest to raw log we may have is 1/1000 sample, that we keep sometimes for noticing obvious things like DDoS or software feature gone mad. Domas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
Humans are not citable sources, per our policy. This isn't Wikipedia, this is Wikimedia. You can cite me, if you want. Domas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Re: [VereinDE-l] Bericht zur Verleihung der Zedler-Medaille und Academy
On 27.11.2010 18:12, Milos Rancic wrote: On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 15:32, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote: On 27.11.2010 01:41, Milos Rancic wrote: In other words, our recruitment base are not well formed scientists, but high school students who are interested in Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) per se. After five years on project, a former high school student -- probably a university student or even a fresh employee -- is much more experienced encyclopedist than any regular scientist who spent his life in research. Simply, a couple of years of daily dealing with various encyclopedic articles creates an expert in encyclopedistics. I do not agree here. High school (and most undergraduate college students as well) lack the access to scientific literature and/or the experience to use it to compile NPOV descriptions. OTOH most graduate students, young professionals and scientists lack the time and the focus to contribute regularly. In this part of life, they are building a family and a career. The most important base for recruiting should be retired professionals, teachers, scientists. They have the background and the time. Many will like the intellectual challenge and enjoy to pass on their experience. High school students are our readers, don't confuse them with our autors. We already have a couple of generations of former high school students trained to be encyclopedists. And those who stayed with us are among the best ones. On the planet. I witnessed so many times that a university student with a couple of years of expertise has superior encyclopedic methods in comparison to many experts. There are great people in any age or demographic group. But the highly motivated high school students don't need recruiting, they will grow from reader to author on their own. I'm talking about active recruiting and refer to the allocation of funds by the WMF for this purpose. And I strongly believe that we can get the most bang for the bucks by addressing retired professionals. Unfortunately, retired experts have to be much more extraordinary than high schools students to be incorporated into the Wikimedia culture. Good knowledge of computers and good nerves obviously make wider gaps than learning policies and encyclopedic and [hopefully] scientific methods. In the bigger languages, the low hanging fruits are already covered. We really should concentrate funds to improvement of existing articles and expanding only in underdeveloped, usually highly arcane topics. For both we need people with knowledge and understanding. The latter usually only comes with experience. Ideally, encyclopedists shouldn't be experts in particular fields, but experts in writing encyclopedia: those who are able to compile known facts into readable articles, according to the encyclopedic rules. That was true in the beginning. Today we really need more specific knowledge and understanding. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:26 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I know quite a lot about operational requirements, and I know that policies should state clearly what IS being done, not what may be done. It's quite practical to be more explicit. For example, the policy could state clearly what exactly is being done. That would be more explicit. Yes, that would be more explicit. It would also mean that every minute change of procedure would entail a policy change. Policies are not meant to be descriptions of what we do and how we do it, they are meant to be the rules that we put on ourselves about what we do and what we do not do. There are things that we promise to do and there are things that we promise not to do. But there are also things that we want to keep a leeway of doing, not doing or doing in a different way without needing a formal board resolution each time something changes. Surely there are ways to publish policies which don't require a formal board resolution every time something changes. Also, any emergency exceptions could always be documented later, after the emergency has been resolved. But I'm not sure how practical it would be. Maybe there are times when you want to be able to analyze people's page views without tipping them off to the fact that you're doing so. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Anti-vandalism bot census
Hi all; I'm creating a census[1] with all the anti-vandalism bots in the Wikimedia projects history. I want to research the features and techniques used in all these past years. I need your help for compiling all the nicks of those bots. You can help adding info to the page, but if you don't have free time for that, write only the nickname and I will retrieve all the available info about the bot. With the currently available information, I have found two main categories of anti-vandalism bots: * First generation: simple scoring systems based in regular expressions and heuristics. * Second generation: machine learning, neural networks and bayesian filters. Have you got suggestions to this classification? What is your opinion about the past and the future of anti-vandalism bots? Can FlaggedRevs and similar approaches make these bots useless? Thanks, emijrp [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Anti-vandalism_bot_census#Census ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Surely there are ways to publish policies which don't require a formal board resolution every time something changes. Also, any emergency exceptions could always be documented later, after the emergency has been resolved. The policy shouldn't change based on minute implementation details. Like Andre said, it is designed to describe the general policies, not the specifics. A page on wikitech like [[Log rotation procedures]] would both document the process and be citable to those who have questions. And it doesn't need a board resolution at all :D -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
In a message dated 11/29/2010 2:14:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, midom.li...@gmail.com writes: This isn't Wikipedia, this is Wikimedia. You can cite me, if you want. Go on record, then I'll cite you. An email list is not a citable source, per our policy. However a page on the server is citable. So put your reputation up for view, then you'll be citable :) W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On 29 November 2010 10:11, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: The sampled 1/1000 squid logs can be used for statistical purposes, such as page view stats. Someone more techy can answer that better than I can, if the samples include IP addresses that could be used w/ geoip for geographic analysis. (I think perhaps not) we do aggregations on full sample, not 1/1000 1/1000 gets saved to a file for post-mortems and wtf is going on type of analysis. Ah, that explains it - I was wondering how we could get something as precise as three views one day, five the next out of a 1/1000 sample! So am I right in assuming that what happens is: 1) page request comes in and is served 2) every thousandth request is sent to a separate file and logged 3) the rest are stripped of all data bar X page requested 4) this is kept for the pageview statistics, which are very fine-grained The end result: one file with 0.1% of requests logged in detail and another file with hit counts and no more. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
If that's the case, I would suggest, if it does not do so already, that the server also grab details about How did you get here? such as keywords used, or page-come-from and so on. Also I would want it to grab geographic location (where known), which would help us to know, for example, if we're getting a lot of readers from Nigeria, or none. W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
Hi! Go on record, then I'll cite you. An email list is not a citable source, per our policy. Why would I care about your policy? Which policy is 'our' policy? Why does it apply to anything here? However a page on the server is citable. So put your reputation up for view, then you'll be citable :) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062730.html Domas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
In a message dated 11/29/2010 11:33:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, midom.li...@gmail.com writes: Hi! Go on record, then I'll cite you. An email list is not a citable source, per our policy. Why would I care about your policy? Which policy is 'our' policy? Why does it apply to anything here? However a page on the server is citable. So put your reputation up for view, then you'll be citable :) http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062730.html Domas It's isn't my policy, it's our policy. If you don't know to what I refer, then perhaps you can read up on it. As far as citing the archives of an email list, that is also not a citable source. If Foundation staff and supporters themselves, are *not prepared* to go on the record with their claims, then why should anyone trust anything they say on an email list? That is the very nature of *false authority*, the bane of our project. I must say, I'm quite surprised that some people here don't grasp this concept yet, after the projects being in existence for so many years now, almost a decade right? It is a fundamental principle, that we should be citing actual authorities, not false claims to authority. W ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
Hi! It's isn't my policy, it's our policy. Who is 'we', whom do you represent? :-) If you don't know to what I refer, then perhaps you can read up on it. You didn't tell what you represent and what policy you talk about, I don't know where to read about it. As far as citing the archives of an email list, that is also not a citable source. Thats very sad. I'm used to my mailing list posts being cited ;-) If Foundation staff and supporters themselves, are *not prepared* to go on the record with their claims, then why should anyone trust anything they say on an email list? I cannot speak for Foundation at the moment, so I don't know why they don't go on the record. I don't go on the record because I don't see any purpose, I already wrote in email what I thought I wanted to write. That is the very nature of *false authority*, the bane of our project. What do you call 'our project'? I don't understand your affiliation. I must say, I'm quite surprised that some people here don't grasp this concept yet, after the projects being in existence for so many years now, almost a decade right? It is a fundamental principle, that we should be citing actual authorities, not false claims to authority. I'm quite surprised you think I should care about whatever you want me to care because you want me to care about it. Cheers, Domas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Signpost – Volume 6, Issu e 48 – 29 November 2010
News and notes: Backlog drive; youth and confidence among Wikipedians, brief news http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/News_and_notes In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/In_the_news Interview: Interview with Johanna Niesyto and Nathaniel Tkacz from Critical Point of View http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/Interview WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/WikiProject_report Features and admins: The best of the week http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/Features_and_admins Election report: Voting in full swing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/Election_report Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/Arbitration_report Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/Technology_report Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29 http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On 29 November 2010 19:39, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I suspect you are the only person on this thread who considers that you are asking for something substantive and important. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
Perhaps the definition of substance is different between you and me, Gerard, but I don't expect you won't disagree it's important for us at the community at large to confirm the Wikimedia accredited troll alive and go well around. /me ducks On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:29 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 November 2010 19:39, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I suspect you are the only person on this thread who considers that you are asking for something substantive and important. I rather suspected WJhonson just didn't know to talk with one of our sysadmins ... - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Surely there are ways to publish policies which don't require a formal board resolution every time something changes. Also, any emergency exceptions could always be documented later, after the emergency has been resolved. The policy shouldn't change based on minute implementation details. Of course not. Basic principles, on the other hand, like who determines when to keep logs, how long they are allowed to keep them, for what reasons they are allowed to keep them, who can make an exception for emergency reasons, how they are to document those exceptions. These absolutely should be in a written policy. What's the alternative? Those with the passwords do whatever they feel like and are accountable to no one? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
Those with the passwords do whatever they feel like and are accountable to no one? yup! Domas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
In a message dated 11/29/2010 8:48:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, russnel...@gmail.com writes: Those with the passwords are accountable to the foundation, which is accountable to the donors. The foundation needs to make sure that the money donated to it is spent wisely, and not frittered away on frivolous requirements. If the foundation does a bad job of that, it will be replaced by some party which CAN do a good job of being responsible to donors. So it is your belief, that the WMF is not accountable at all to it's volunteers, such as editors? Just to its donors? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Backlog] April 2010 Wikimedia Foundation report
FYI. -- Forwarded message -- From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org Date: 2010/11/29 Subject: [Backlog] April 2010 Wikimedia Foundation report To: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org Hi, earlier this year we fell behind on the monthly reports, and April-June were never published. For historical completeness, we're writing up reports for these missing months. April is below. Thanks to Steven Walling for helping with this. So, this is for reporting enthusiasts. ;-) Please consult our most recent reports for up-to-date information. As always, the formatted version is on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Report,_April_2010 Cheers, Erik ==Highlights== * More than 120 chapter representatives and developers meet at the Wikimedia Conference Berlin * Bishakha Datta joins the Board of Trustees * Air travel disruptions lead to stranded Wikimedians and limited Board meeting * Wikimedia Commons becomes first production site to adopt MediaWiki's new look and feel ==Key Metrics== :Global unique visitors: 375 Million (+1.1% compared to previous month, +17.1% compared to previous year) :Page requests: 11.7 Billion (-0.1% compared to the previous month, +7.4% compared to the previous year) The monthly report card for April 2010 can be found at: http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/RC_2010_04_detailed.html Please note the errata published at: http://stats.wikimedia.org/reportcard/RC_2010_04_errata.html ==Key Financial Metrics== :Operating revenue year-to-date: 14.6MM vs. plan of $9.3MM. :Total annual plan is $10.4MM. :Operating expenses year-to-date: $7.3MM vs. plan of $7.8MM. :Total annual plan is $9.2MM. On the revenue side, business Development is still behind, all other areas well over plan. YTD spending is closing gap and only 7% below plan. As of May 12th, unrestricted cash and cash equivalents were $13.4MM, of this amount $10MM are in unrestricted CDs and US Treasury Bonds. ==Wikimedia Conference Berlin, 2010 and volcano aftermath == On April 14-16, the Wikimedia Conference Berlin brought together more than 120 Wikimedians from over 30 countries, including representatives of international chapter organizations, MediaWiki developers, and Wikimedia Foundation staff for presentations, workshops, and informal conversations. The conference was organized by Wikimedia Germany. It was co-sponsored by Wikimedia Germany, other Wikimedia chapters, and the Wikimedia Foundation. The conference was split into a chapters meeting and a developers workshop. During the chapters meeting, each Wikimedia chapter was given the opportunity to present its program activities as well as the current state of the chapter in lightning talks. There were additional deep-dive sessions and presentations focusing on issues such as institutional partnerships, Wikimedia in developing countries, and others. The developers conference consisted of informal hacking and unconference-style workshops on a number of key issues such as user experience, accessibility, and metadata. The conference took place in the Zanox Campus building near the river Spree. More information about the conference can be found at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2010 Many attendees, including Wikimedia Foundation staff, were affected by the ash cloud from the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull, which caused major air traffic disruption throughout Europe. Wikimedia Germany and Wikimedia Foundation administrative staff provided support to stranded attendees to ensure that everyone could make their way home safely. The disruption resulted in significant additional hotel and travel costs. The engineering community assigned the blame for the volcano to Icelandic developer Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason in the form of a bug report, initially called Developers (and WMF Staff) need way out of Europe and finally suggesting a new branch office in Europe: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23223 == Bishakha Datta joins the Board; April Board meeting == In April, following an extensive search process, Bishakha Datta was appointed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Board chair Michael Snow wrote in his announcement: : We have now filled that seat by appointing Bishakha Datta, a journalist, filmmaker, and nonprofit leader from India. (...) By way of background, Bishakha runs a nonprofit based in Mumbai that focuses on conveying women's perspectives in culture and the media. She also has been involved in other international nonprofit work, and her knowledge of India should be a great help to us as we move forward with the strategic plan. In general, her experience will be a wonderful asset and I think she is an ideal fit for the remaining board seat. :http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-April/057537.html Several Trustees were unable to attend the April 2010 Board of Trustees meeting in person due to the volcanic ash cloud. Trustees unable
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: So it is your belief, that the WMF is not accountable at all to it's volunteers, such as editors? Just to its donors? I prefer contributers or simply the community. Donors, editors, admins, volunteers whatever name you want to call them are all part of that. Some people can't give monetarily (or don't want to) some can't (or don't want to) give with their time. They are all part of the community that drives the projects forward. -- James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
In a message dated 11/29/2010 9:34:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, russnel...@gmail.com writes: Huh?? Editors are donors as well, as are people who contribute to mailing lists, as are you. On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/29/2010 8:48:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, russnel...@gmail.com writes: Those with the passwords are accountable to the foundation, which is accountable to the donors. The foundation needs to make sure that the money donated to it is spent wisely, and not frittered away on frivolous requirements. If the foundation does a bad job of that, it will be replaced by some party which CAN do a good job of being responsible to donors. So it is your belief, that the WMF is not accountable at all to it's volunteers, such as editors? Just to its donors? Is it your belief, that the WMF is not accountable at all, to the thousands or perhaps millions of volunteers who are not also financial contributors i.e. not donors ? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
On Nov 29, 2010, at 9:39 PM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: So it is your belief, that the WMF is not accountable at all to it's volunteers, such as editors? Just to its donors? I prefer contributers or simply the community. Donors, editors, admins, volunteers whatever name you want to call them are all part of that. Some people can't give monetarily (or don't want to) some can't (or don't want to) give with their time. They are all part of the community that drives the projects forward. I'm going to do something I rarely do: try to speak for others. At the Foundation offices, I think it is safe to say that every one of us feels a deep sense of accountability to the mission, to our coworkers, and to contributors of all types: financial, knowledge, editor, administrator, developer, and to our readers. I have never worked with a more focused and intensely mission driven group. I say this as the person running the contribution campaign, and as a long term editor. To suggest that the WMF (which means what, exactly, in this context? Staff? Mailing list participants?) does not feel accountable to anyone but donors is to make a careless generalization, and one that borders on trolling. The people who make up the staff and the volunteers of our projects are driven and give tremendously of their time. I defy anyone to find me a single one of them who only feels accountable to donors. You can't. I guarantee it. Philippe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
In a message dated 11/29/2010 10:00:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, pbeaude...@wikimedia.org writes: To suggest that the WMF (which means what, exactly, in this context? Staff? Mailing list participants?) does not feel accountable to anyone but donors is to make a careless generalization, and one that borders on trolling. The people who make up the staff and the volunteers of our projects are driven and give tremendously of their time. I defy anyone to find me a single one of them who only feels accountable to donors. You can't. I guarantee it. Exactly the reason why I called that generalization into question. If you read the thread you will see who made it, and who questioned it. Will ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
